# Distant Networks: Leahy's Legislation (11/16/06)



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It appears that there is a bill now being processed in the senate!!!!

Story: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/111606newsletterupd.cfm


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

jhamps10 said:


> It appears that the senate may have saved the Distant networks for E* AND given a wider range for SV stations too!!!! Story:
> 
> http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/111606newsletterupd.cfm


Sounds nice, but 3 days to pass a bill. Maybe next year.


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

I don't know why this isn't front page news here!


----------



## kf4omc (Apr 11, 2006)

Ok.. I read the bill but what about RV waviers???


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

This is hopeful news. We need a real satellite viewer act. the current one is to NAB slanted.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

This new one is also slanted. If you are able to receive local into local service, you do not qualify for distant network service.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Remember...

The Senate must pass the bill;
The House of Representatives must pass the same bill; and,
The President must sign it into law.

The House is out until early December. The injunction will take effect before this even has a chance to become law.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Then this is where they need to add HD DNS if HD LiL is unavailable to any market.


----------



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> This new one is also slanted. If you are able to receive local into local service, you do not qualify for distant network service.


Actually you are partally right, you can't get them if the dma has all 4 networks, but if there is a market w/o all 4 big networks, then they can get the locals in their area, as well as the distant to cover the other networks. no offense greg, but IMO it looks to me that this is the way it should be. Let me guess you have dns and live in an LIL area don't ya???? TWO letters is the big complaint here. PQ!!!!! GET OVER IT!!!!!!!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jhamps10 said:


> Actually you are partally right, you can't get them if the dma has all 4 networks, but if there is a market w/o all 4 big networks, then they can get the locals in their area, as well as the distant to cover the other networks. no offense greg, but IMO it looks to me that this is the way it should be. Let me guess you have dns and live in an LIL area don't ya???? TWO letters is the big complaint here. PQ!!!!! GET OVER IT!!!!!!!


Never had distant networks in my life.


----------



## ChoralScholar (Jul 23, 2004)

jhamps10 said:


> It appears that the senate may have saved the Distant networks for E* AND given a wider range for SV stations too!!!! Story:


Can someone explain exactly HOW this widens the SV guidelines? I thought they could already provide SV neighboring locals?

I live in Harrison, AR with Springfield, MO locals. The county ten miles to the south resides in both Springfield and Little Rock DMAs. I would sure like to get Little Rock locals as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*Leahy Leads Bipartisan Effort To Protect Rural Consumers From Losing Satellite TV Service Options*

Direct link to the announcement on the senator's website:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200611/111606a.html

I don't see a bill number yet ... Always looking for the precise legal language!


----------



## terfmop (Sep 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> *Leahy Leads Bipartisan Effort To Protect Rural Consumers From Losing Satellite TV Service Options*
> 
> Direct link to the announcement on the senator's website:
> http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200611/111606a.html
> ...


As it was worded in the article it sounds very fair to those of us that don't have all of the major networks in our DMA.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Dish's press release:

"Today, Senators Leahy, Allard, Inouye, Snowe, Rockefeller, Byrd, Salazar, Clinton, Roberts, Pryor, Enzi, and Ensign stood up for American consumers by introducing S. 4067, the 'Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006.'

EchoStar commends this tremendous bipartisan effort to enable innocent consumers to continue to receive distant network channels, particularly subscribers who live in rural areas and markets where there is no local broadcaster. Unfortunately, because of a court ruling that requires EchoStar to stop transmitting these signals by December 1, 2006 and the imminent adjournment of Congress, it appears that innocent consumers will lose their network signals before Congress can act on this important legislation."

Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=932396&highlight=


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Much ado about almost nothing. Leave aside the fact that nobody has read the bill (if it exists) and that there is no practical way this gets done this year. Just reading the blurb:


1. No license for RV
2. No license for truckers
3. No change in SV (as now E* could offer, but they don't)
4. DNS with LIL requires substantial $ from Charlie to affiliate (not likely)
5. No grandfathers
6. It helps the unserved in that footdragging on LIL won't be an impediment for DNS. (Lafayette, IN; Presque Isle, ME, Parkersburg, WV, etc.)
7. It hurts everyone else in that footdragging on LIL won't be an impediment for DNS. 210 DMA's will be done by 2210....

It would help if everybody would consider what the reality (vs expectations) is. You are setting yourselves up for another disappointment.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> This new one is also slanted. If you are able to receive local into local service, you do not qualify for distant network service.


However OTA and Contour B and ILLR and waivers and... are replaced by cold, hard cash. Not that Charlie would part with any.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

kf4omc said:


> Ok.. I read the bill but what about RV waviers???


Really where? If you read the bill it either mentioned RV waivers or it didn't. Which was it?


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

ChoralScholar said:


> Can someone explain exactly HOW this widens the SV guidelines? I thought they could already provide SV neighboring locals?
> 
> I live in Harrison, AR with Springfield, MO locals. The county ten miles to the south resides in both Springfield and Little Rock DMAs. I would sure like to get Little Rock locals as well.


It doesn't. Some people are going bonkers without the slightest bit of hard information. But if it makes them happy.....

I think the bigger story is how the Constitution was magically changed so that the Senate can do this all by itself.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*The text of S.4067 has not yet been received from GPO*

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/ for S.4067​It is probably best not to speculate about the exact legal language of the bill and exactly what is and isn't permitted until the bill itself can be read.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BobS said:


> I think the bigger story is how the Constitution was magically changed so that the Senate can do this all by itself.


Unless the Senate agreed to adjourn today, the house will be in session on Friday. They will all be back in December anyways ... too late to prevent a shutoff but still time to do some work before the end of the year.


----------



## Satellite Expo (Oct 26, 2004)

Thanks for fixing the link for the Transmitter News. We are always happy to spread the news (good/bad/indifferent) throughout the satellite community. For those of you that would like the Transmitter News sent to your email each day, there is no charge. Here is the link to sign up: http://www.transmitternews.com/subscribe.cfm If this link isn't appropriate James, please remove with my apologies.

Thanks again
SatExpo
www.SBE07.com


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

We thrive on the speculative and die in the reality. We are but pins in the bowling
alley of life, set up to be knocked down again and again. What was that huge
sucking sound? Just millions of satellite subs getting ready to shout Hoo Haa. 

Best wishes, folks, but just don't hold your breath too long. :nono:


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

BobS said:


> It doesn't. Some people are going bonkers without the slightest bit of hard information. But if it makes them happy.....
> 
> I think the bigger story is how the Constitution was magically changed so that the Senate can do this all by itself.


Who changed the Constitution? Congress can make laws then make new laws to overwrite the old ones as conditions change, as long as the laws can withstand the constitutional chanllenge. To be ruled unconstitutional, someone must first chanllenge the law, then the court must agree.

The court has already said they act on the law that gave them no leaway, would have allowed the settlement to take place had the law permit them to do so. In another word change of the law will be accepted by the court.

I don't know about this but with the prospect of the new law, depending on how likely it will pass, can E* ask delay of shutoff from the court?


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Originally Posted by *BobS*  
_It doesn't. Some people are going bonkers without the slightest bit of hard information. But if it makes them happy....._

_I think the bigger story is how the Constitution was magically changed so that the Senate can do this all by itself._



jacmyoung said:


> Who changed the Constitution? Congress can make laws then make new laws to overwrite the old ones as conditions change, as long as the laws can withstand the constitutional chanllenge. To be ruled unconstitutional, someone must first chanllenge the law, then the court must agree.
> 
> The court has already said they act on the law that gave them no leaway, would have allowed the settlement to take place had the law permit them to do so. In another word change of the law will be accepted by the court.
> 
> I don't know about this but with the prospect of the new law, depending on how likely it will pass, can E* ask delay of shutoff from the court?


I think his point is, "the Senate can't do it *by itself* " - it still needs the House and the president's signature.


----------



## ckinninger (Jul 23, 2005)

This is great news that Echo isn't sitting on their hands and moving on. They are using their weight to push customers to push their senators to take action. However, it's a bit late. I don't see how Echo expects that people are going to go without networks for months or however long it takes to get this into law if it passes in the end. What is needed by Echo to prevent massive "moving" and loss of customers is some sort of stay on this December 1 cutoff "because of a pending Protection Act." It's not like trying to get a stay based on old information so if there's a court or body that can hear this then I'm sure they're going to be in front of them asap. Or... maybe it's just a move for the long run so they can provide dns in certain situations and not lose a few new customer opportunities. 

I am totally biased but this new Satellite Consumer Protection Act seem right. Echo should pay for what they did and not the consumer. How are thousands of joe blow customers supposed to know that Echo is/was abusing the priveledge of offering dns? They spend $500 or whatever for a Dish system and now they can't get networks? Then they go to Direct and spend it all over again? Not everyone has leased systems. 

Somewhere about 15 pages back on this thread someone made a comparison if a liquor store that sells to underage people and if they get popped they lose their license. Great comparison IMHO but I was just thinking... The people who already bought their boose, and are of legal age, don't have to give flush theirs down the toilet like this. 

Also, IMHO, the current penalty that Echo is supposedly paying is unfair but to the consumers. Why should consumers lose in any way? Why wasn't this forseen by lawmakers so the penaltly would target the violator which was Echo only. "Movers" is another story where the consumer should be blamed for blatently lying about their address but we all know movers won't ever be targeted because we all know that Direct/Murdoch pushed this whole thing as evidenced by only Fox affiliates holding out on a settlement, and Direct has just as many movers.

To me, this is almost like the third world country corruption. Penalize Echo but not the consumers at the same time. Jeez! And to have Murdoch behind the whole thing comon what is this? This is embarrassing.

CK


----------



## jjcaudle (Sep 29, 2006)

Lame duck session of congress....with party control about to switch in the new session in Jan. Not a lot of hope to get this bill through. Does this distant channel stuff affect Directv at all?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes ... DirecTV stands to gain customers because they will be the only satellite company who will be able to offer distants and SV channels as of December 1st.

Perhaps something in the bill will affect D* ... I hope it will. The press release is more of a "this is for E*" legislation - it would be unfair to hold E* to different rules than D*. Whatever is written will have to refer to E* as if it were just any satellite company.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

EchoStar lauds legislation
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/11/13/daily56.html?from_rss=1


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

jhamps10 said:


> BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It appears that there is a bill now being processed in the senate!!!!
> 
> Story: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/111606newsletterupd.cfm


Far out! These legislators can go home talking about the good things they're doing in DC. Senate and house change hands, this bill will bounce around, MAYBE get passed then on to the House. Where it will bounce around and MAYBE get passed.

Then maybe, it goes to Conference Committee where it will bounce again some more.

If all goes well, it should see the light of day within 10 years.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yes ... DirecTV stands to gain customers because they will be the only satellite company who will be able to offer distants and SV channels as of December 1st.
> 
> Perhaps something in the bill will affect D* ... I hope it will. The press release is more of a "this is for E*" legislation - it would be unfair to hold E* to different rules than D*. Whatever is written will have to refer to E* as if it were just any satellite company.


Because a public law (as opposed to a private law) is supposed to be general in nature - not written for the benefit of a particular entity, the way around this is to describe E* without naming it. Very similar to the way the four areas (NH, MS, OR, ??) received special dispensations in SHVERA 2004. You describe the entity in a way that it only applies to the specific target of the legislation. There may be problem with the cash portion of a bill because of the prohibition on a bill of attainder. Essentially this is Congress prescribing a penalty after the fact. This is a real obstacle if we were dealing with criminal law but I still think it may cause problems.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

FTA Michael said:


> Dish's press release:
> EchoStar commends this tremendous bipartisan effort to enable *innocent *consumers to continue to receive distant network channels, particularly subscribers who live in rural areas and markets where there is no local broadcaster. Unfortunately, because of a court ruling that requires EchoStar to stop transmitting these signals by December 1, 2006 and the imminent adjournment of Congress, it appears that *innocent *consumers will lose their network signals before Congress can act on this important legislation."


I really hate the use of the word "innocent" to describe the consumers. Am I supposed to start crying or something? "Oh no, the innocent consumers! Get me a kleenex!"


----------



## dough_boy747 (Jun 18, 2004)

ckinninger said:


> This is great news that Echo isn't sitting on their hands and moving on. They are using their weight to push customers to push their senators to take action. However, it's a bit late. I don't see how Echo expects that people are going to go without networks for months or however long it takes to get this into law if it passes in the end. What is needed by Echo to prevent massive "moving" and loss of customers is some sort of stay on this December 1 cutoff "because of a pending Protection Act." It's not like trying to get a stay based on old information so if there's a court or body that can hear this then I'm sure they're going to be in front of them asap. Or... maybe it's just a move for the long run so they can provide dns in certain situations and not lose a few new customer opportunities.
> 
> I am totally biased but this new Satellite Consumer Protection Act seem right. Echo should pay for what they did and not the consumer. How are thousands of joe blow customers supposed to know that Echo is/was abusing the priveledge of offering dns? They spend $500 or whatever for a Dish system and now they can't get networks? Then they go to Direct and spend it all over again? Not everyone has leased systems.
> 
> ...


I thank it's a shame that some people that will not stick with others that have no local channels in there part of the country, it should be the same for all it doesn't matter where you live, we all should have the same kind of programming, When we see our brothrs and sisters in need, we are American, we should make sure or country men have the same as we have. What is so sad we will help another country that we go to war with, and make sure they have all that they need but we will hurt one another when we need just a local channel. It could only help us if that person had the same axsis to the same infomation that we have weather we live in a city or out in the county. We should help suport things like this we do when it comes a starm or any other kind of problem that happens


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ckinninger said:


> Somewhere about 15 pages back on this thread someone made a comparison if a liquor store that sells to underage people and if they get popped they lose their license. Great comparison IMHO but I was just thinking... The people who already bought their boose, and are of legal age, don't have to give flush theirs down the toilet like this.


Legal customers (and illegal ones) who purchased at that store were able to consume their booze. Now that the store is closed, the store can no longer sell booze. The difference with satellite is that they force consumption each month. Paying for your month of locals for August doesn't give you any rights to consume locals in October (except what you recorded in August). At the end of each month the "TV cabinet" is empty.


----------



## HuggieBear (Nov 17, 2006)

I have been reading these pages for quite some time now I feel the need to throw my 2 cents in so here goes...

Shame on all those that are hoping against alll be that we lose are distant locals I will not name names but I can clearly see by some that me losing my channels will just make their day.

Sure Dish should be punished and that could have een done with mega fines I am sure a sentance like $500,000,000 and being ordered not to collect it from the customes by raising prices could have been ordered and fair. Make them then requalify all DNS to weed out the illegals. I did not break the law yet I am being punished is not right .

For those wondering NO I do not have locals in my area and NO an antenna will not work and NO the cable option will not work either it is just as bad a reception as the antenna.

Well that is what I had to say on the matter and I hope congress will be able to fix this after their turkey day vacation and I am with out for only a short time.


----------



## Ohioankev (Jan 19, 2006)

HuggieBear said:


> I have been reading these pages for quite some time now I feel the need to throw my 2 cents in so here goes...
> 
> Shame on all those that are hoping against alll be that we lose are distant locals I will not name names but I can clearly see by some that me losing my channels will just make their day.
> 
> ...


This is good news, especially after using cables DVR boxes for the last couple weeks. (I have 90 tv shows, recorded on Dishs DVR with 20 hours left, 20 shows on the cables DVR recorded with 50% of the box used) Once it passes and my Distants are saved, i believe the cable company will lose me as a customer again.


----------



## Boba Fett (Jul 26, 2006)

I totally agree with you. We got some jerks in here who can easily pick up the major networks with rabbit ears. I don't have FOX and ABC in my area and the closest stations are 200 miles away. So DISH is going to screw me for a few weeks, because they did something illegal. I expect Dish to give us at least 3 free PPV coupons in my next bill.



HuggieBear said:


> I have been reading these pages for quite some time now I feel the need to throw my 2 cents in so here goes...
> 
> Shame on all those that are hoping against alll be that we lose are distant locals I will not name names but I can clearly see by some that me losing my channels will just make their day.
> 
> ...


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> At the end of each month the "TV cabinet" is empty.


Given most of the current programming, it's empty at the beginning and middle of the month, as well.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

HuggieBear said:


> Sure Dish should be punished and that could have een done with mega fines I am sure a sentance like $500,000,000 and being ordered not to collect it from the customes by raising prices could have been ordered and fair. Make them then requalify all DNS to weed out the illegals. I did not break the law yet I am being punished is not right .


The fly in your ointment is that Echostar did break the law, and that particular law does not provide for a punishment by a fine only - the law requires a permanent injunction. It's quite clear, and there's no exception. It plainly says "if a satellite company breaks this law, they cannot sell distant networks to any customer at all, ever again."

Unfortunately, those who could legally receive distant networks are caught up in this. Blame the law or blame Echostar for not following the law. But the simple fact of the matter is that the courts had no choice, based on the way the law is written.


----------



## HuggieBear (Nov 17, 2006)

oldave said:


> The fly in your ointment is that Echostar did break the law, and that particular law does not provide for a punishment by a fine only - the law requires a permanent injunction. It's quite clear, and there's no exception. It plainly says "if a satellite company breaks this law, they cannot sell distant networks to any customer at all, ever again."


THat is what I mean I hope congress will change that and have fines as a punishment and not a punishment that hurts the people rather than the company.


> Unfortunately, those who could legally receive distant networks are caught up in this. Blame the law or blame Echostar for not following the law. But the simple fact of the matter is that the courts had no choice, based on the way the law is written.


All true and I am glad congress is going to try and do some thing about it when they get back. But one thing that sadden me is how some who will not be affected are so happy that others are and if they had their way they would run to congress and beg them not to change the law for us poor souls that have no other remidies


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HuggieBear said:


> THat is what I mean I hope congress will change that and have fines as a punishment and not a punishment that hurts the people rather than the company.


The punishment on the company is the lost of $3 million per month in revenue directly because they cannot sell distants and additional losses when customers choose another option where they can get distants or all networks.


> All true and I am glad congress is going to try and do some thing about it when they get back. But one thing that sadden me is how some who will not be affected are so happy that others are and if they had their way they would run to congress and beg them not to change the law for us poor souls that have no other remidies


I don't believe they are happy that other customers are losing distants - I see it more as a general glee that "big bad Echostar" is being stomped down for doing something wrong.

I still look forward to seeing the legislation and hope it is better that Leahy's press release summary.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Boba Fett said:


> I totally agree with you. We got some jerks in here who can easily pick up the major networks with rabbit ears. I don't have FOX and ABC in my area and the closest stations are 200 miles away. So DISH is going to screw me for a few weeks, because they did something illegal. I expect Dish to give us at least 3 free PPV coupons in my next bill.


you live in/ near laredo!!


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

I'm sure I am being put into the jerk category. I regret that innocent parties will suffer for Charlie's misdeeds. The innocent often suffer from the actions of others. It is the way of the world and we can only try to minimize it. I am going to have to tape The Young and the Restless for my aunt indefinitely. I would rather not but I want to help her out. I simply believe that the law should be followed. Get it changed through the regular process if you don't like it but don't become a special pleader for ignoring it. Without civil society and laws we have anarchy. I have been vigorous in my belief in part because of the numerous people (you know who you are) that are not unserved but want DNS for convenience, ego or any number of selfish reasons that were not the intent of the 119 license. There should never have been any grandfathering. You are unserved, get a waiver or no DNS. End of Story. Those who will find themselves without any network programming (as opposed to their favorite city) should also blame these nitwits because they encouraged E* to flout the law. LIL ASAP, DNS where absolutely necessary and move (physically) if you are desperate for another DMA's network signals.



James Long said:


> The punishment on the company is the lost of $1-4 million per month in revenue directly because they cannot sell distants and additional losses when customers choose another option where they can get distants or all networks.I don't believe they are happy that other customers are losing distants - I see it more as a general glee that "big bad Echostar" is being stomped down for doing something wrong.
> 
> I still look forward to seeing the legislation and hope it is better that Leahy's press release summary.


----------



## Boba Fett (Jul 26, 2006)

East of Laredo to be exact.



sattec said:


> you live in/ near laredo!!


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Boba Fett said:


> East of Laredo to be exact.


if you ever need anything, I go right by your place (probably) all the time.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

BobS said:


> The innocent often suffer from the actions of others.


No doubt. Look how much help people get around DBSTalk figuring out how to *"move"*.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Presence said:


> No doubt. Look how much help people get around DBSTalk figuring out how to *"move"*.


Movers are not the reason E* is losing distants. The discussion needs to stay at a dull roar, acknowledging that some people have chosen to lie to E* and/or D* about their service address so they could get channels or programming that are not available at their real service address without turning the forum into a "how to lie" festival. People "move" for many reasons. The primary reason is to receive local and distant TV stations. Sometimes it is just a market preference. Other times there are missing networks in their markets or they want sports programming that is blacked out where they live.

There are legitimate complaints about a system that allows customers to get a local TV channel via cable but not via satellite. I can certainly understand why someone would want to "move" to fix that situation. I would prefer a solution that would level the playing field for all --- after all, "moving" only helps a handful of subscribers who either come up with the idea or learn about it on the internet. Changes in the law would help customers for whom "moving" would never cross their mind.


----------



## PBowie (Jan 4, 2006)

Mad Murdoch needs to be stripped of his citizenship and shipped back to the outback.
surely the INS could see he was only taking citizenship not for the love of the country but just to get his dirty hands on TV/Radio station ownership.

Someday Consumers will have REAL freedom of choice and be able to have and pay for whatever channels they want whether its Sioux falls locals and I live in Boston or or Dallas locals and I live in Newark.
I want the freedom to not have to pay for all the religious, shopping, sports channels I dont want. and pay for those I Do !!

no freedom of choice = big business dictating to me what I can and can't watch.
and the FCC is like the UN- a waste of time and money


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Why don't they just add the missing networks to the local packages where they are needed like they did with WB/CW? Customers shouldn't have to pay $1.50 extra for a distant station when others get all the networks for $5.00.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

By Ted Hearn 
11/20/2006

The House adjourned last Wednesday until Dec. 5, ensuring that Congress won't disturb the court injunction that requires EchoStar Communications to cut off distant network signals to 850,000 customers.

A federal court ordered EchoStar to stop selling distant feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming after determining that EchoStar had broken copyright law by selling the channels to hundreds of thousands of legally ineligible subscribers.

The Senate was expected to adjourn last week and not resume the lame-duck session until Dec. 5.

Congress could come to EchoStar's rescue if enough disconnected subscribers put heat on their lawmakers. Distant network programming is popular because it provides rural viewers with access to network affiliates in New York and Los Angeles. Benefits include out-of-market sporting events and time-shifted primetime and late-night network fare....

--- 
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6393315.html )


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Darkman said:


> By Ted Hearn
> 11/20/2006


Once again, an article before it's time. Unfortunately not written with current information.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

"before it's time" -----> Good! 

"not written with current information" ----> Bad!


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

By Joyzelle Davis, Rocky Mountain News 
November 18, 2006

A bipartisan group of senators on Thursday introduced a bill that would block a court-mandated shutdown of EchoStar's distant network TV signals to about 800,000 subscribers by Dec. 1, but the move likely came too late to provide relief...

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5153054,00.html )


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

What's Next!


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

We sit... and wait?


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Quoting the article:

Stations from neighboring that are considered “significantly viewed” by the Federal Communications Commission, and generally treated as local stations, could be carried, such as the Albany, N.Y., stations which serve Vermont’s Bennington County and the Boston-area stations, which serve Windham County.
end quote

Bennington County is in the Albany DMA and Windham County is part of the Boston DMA - why would there be need to protect the ability to receive channels from within your DMA? I thought only channels outside your DMA were endangered.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Just a reminder for those who missed the schoolhouse rock "I'm Just a Bill"
http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html

The Senate must pass the bill
The House of Representatives must introduce pass THE SAME bill
---the House is out of session until Dec 7.
The President of the US must sign the bill into law.

ONLY THEN will any congressional action take effect.

See ya
Tony


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Essentially correct but to be precise:

The President may (a) sign the bill, (b) veto the bill or (c) do nothing.

(a) If he signs it, it becomes law.

(b) In the case of a veto it dies unless repassed by 2/3 of each House.

(c) If he does nothing then - the bill becomes law in 10 days (not counting Sundays) unless Congress has adjourned in which case it dies (ye old "pocket veto").

Thanks for the link. I recommend it to all - especially those born after 1970 (because they started school just as public education was really going into the crapper).



TNGTony said:


> Just a reminder for those who missed the schoolhouse rock "I'm Just a Bill"
> http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html
> 
> The Senate must pass the bill
> ...


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

As noted before, this fellow is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. SV generally includes those stations that are LIL-types and neighboring communities. However for the purposes of DBS, local stations are specifically excluded from the definition (yes, this is different than cable) so no station in the DMA would be SV in any case. But you are correct in-DMA network stations (LIL) are not impacted by the ruling and the Leahy proposal really doesn't change the situation for them.



wkomorow said:


> Quoting the article:
> 
> Stations from neighboring that are considered "significantly viewed" by the Federal Communications Commission, and generally treated as local stations, could be carried, such as the Albany, N.Y., stations which serve Vermont's Bennington County and the Boston-area stations, which serve Windham County.
> end quote
> ...


----------



## Boba Fett (Jul 26, 2006)

Which FOX affiliate do you receive from DISH ?



sattec said:


> if you ever need anything, I go right by your place (probably) all the time.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

wkomorow said:


> Quoting the article:
> 
> Stations from neighboring that are considered "significantly viewed" by the Federal Communications Commission, and generally treated as local stations, could be carried, such as the Albany, N.Y., stations which serve Vermont's Bennington County and the Boston-area stations, which serve Windham County.
> end quote
> ...


I noticed the same misunderstanding. I called to explain it. Leahy's staff knows the situation. The press release was written in a hurry.


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

What keeps people from "moving to LA or NY"? I presently have VOIP phone service and you can pick your area code. So couldn't you find a friend in LA to send the bill to and add a LA phone number?


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Red Dwarf said:


> What keeps people from "moving to LA or NY"? I presently have VOIP phone service and you can pick your area code. So couldn't you find a friend in LA to send the bill to and add a LA phone number?


Boy, that's a tough one. Wait...how about honesty, integrity, ethics and other concepts apparently unknown in these parts?:nono2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Red Dwarf said:


> What keeps people from "moving to LA or NY"? I presently have VOIP phone service and you can pick your area code. So couldn't you find a friend in LA to send the bill to and add a LA phone number?


The billing address doesn't have to be the same as the service address. The people who have reported "moving" in the past don't have friends -- they just get the bill sent where they are or use online billing/payment options.

If course, if E* ever does run audits to find "movers" (and there is no sign that they ever have) the distance between billing and service addresses would be a red flag. I'm not sure they even check to make sure that the phone number is in the right city or state as long as the receivers call in from the number on the account. But for answers to that you'll need to talk to those who have "moved".


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

BobS said:


> Boy, that's a tough one. Wait...how about honesty, integrity, ethics and other concepts apparently unknown in these parts?:nono2:


How ethical is it to cut off someone from distant network signals, when the local broadcaster can't deliver it? Who is the victim? Remenber this is just TV.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Boba Fett said:


> Which FOX affiliate do you receive from DISH ?


chicago...I've visited with you before, you get houston, right? My set-up is at an mdu I operate in Laredo. DirecTv can only give me LA for a different system/same town. I want SA like TW has, in town.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

TNGTony said:


> Just a reminder for those who missed the schoolhouse rock "I'm Just a Bill"
> http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html


I prefer this one. Probably the reason why we are in this mess to begin with.

http://rmannion.com/political/ConspiracyTheoryRock.mpg


----------



## bobojo (Nov 15, 2006)

James Long said:


> I'm not sure they even check to make sure that the phone number is in the right city or state as long as the receivers call in from the number on the account.


Why do you even have to have the phone line plugged in? We don't do PPV so we have never had the phone line plugged in. Is that any different with the Vip 622?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

E* will charge you $5 more per month for having a ViP-622 DVR and not having it connected to a phone line. There are other dual tuner receivers this fee also applies to. It is one of their "business decisions" to do this.


----------



## Ohioankev (Jan 19, 2006)

James Long said:


> E* will charge you $5 more per month for having a ViP-622 DVR and not having it connected to a phone line. There are other dual tuner receivers this fee also applies to. It is one of their "business decisions" to do this.


Yeah and even though the caller id log picks up every call on the 625, i still get the message that my dish isn't connected to a phoneline, please connect it or get the $5 fee from hades.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Red Dwarf said:


> How ethical is it to cut off someone from distant network signals, when the local broadcaster can't deliver it? Who is the victim?  Remenber this is just TV.


If the DNS is coming from E*, it's ethical, legally required and good public policy to terminate them. DNS is probably available from D* or you can try cable. Contrary to popular belief there is not constitutional right to the TV signals of your choice. There are many "victims" but really one culprit. Hint: the initials are C.E.

If you want to play hostage and Congress complies, there is nothing that E* cannot do and get away with it. Try a gajillion dollar fine and Charlie will cry poor mouth and insist that DNS must be cut to make up for it (while passing the cost along to the customer). At that point not much can be done unless the government seizes the uplink center. Nope, I really think that only a stretch in the Graybar Hotel will get Mr. Ergen's attention. Any new law ought to factor that in.


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

BobS said:


> If the DNS is coming from E*, it's ethical, legally required and good public policy to terminate them. DNS is probably available from D* or you can try cable. Contrary to popular belief there is not constitutional right to the TV signals of your choice. There are many "victims" but really one culprit. Hint: the initials are C.E.
> Nope, I really think that only a stretch in the Graybar Hotel will get Mr. Ergen's attention. Any new law ought to factor that in.



We are not talking about TV signals of your choice. We are talking about having a network signal or no signal at all. That's a big difference.

And what's with your woody for Dish? Do you have all your local networks? It's easy to stand on "the law" when it doesn't effect you. Some people can't get cable.

As for people who should go to the Graybar hotel, why not throw Ruprent in for unethical business practices. Fox was the only one who didn't want to sign the settlement with Dish. This guy owns too much and is acting like the monopolist he is.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Funny, but last I checked, Dish Network filed a brief with the court asking for the termination injunction to be pushed back to April, 2007.

Those wonderful affiliate boards, the ones that would have taken $100 million of Dish Network's "settlement" money, are asking the courts to *ignore* Dish Network and have the injunction start on 1 December, just like the judge originally ordered..

So let's talk about unethical business practices...

...oh yes, the delivery of distant network signals without qualfication. We now bring you back to the soap opera, where a company has been found guilty "in every way imaginable", yet Congress may actually help this law violator with a new law (which I actually do support).


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Red Dwarf said:


> We are not talking about TV signals of your choice. We are talking about having a network signal or no signal at all. That's a big difference.
> 
> *If you can get a E* signal you more than likely can get a D* signal. Therefore your RED herring stinks. See I can make things big and colorful too!*
> 
> ...



fin fin


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

BobS said:


> Much ado about almost nothing. Leave aside the fact that nobody has read the bill (if it exists) and that there is no practical way this gets done this year. Just reading the blurb:
> 
> 1. No license for RV
> 2. No license for truckers
> ...


NOT really cause maybe this NEW law will trump the Kangaroo court that ordered dish down in the first place. doesnt matter to me I get DNS for dish and local form cable company, dish offered me a free OTA...I passed if they shut it off I'll still have my locals but not having 4cbs's or 4 fox's during NFL season will suck!


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

BobS said:


> Boy, that's a tough one. Wait...how about honesty, integrity, ethics and other concepts apparently unknown in these parts?:nono2:


about as tough to understand as why I cant buy And watch ANY channel on dish's birds. I should be allowed to watch WHATEVER channel I pay for! whats next State run TV?


----------



## Red Dwarf (Aug 25, 2002)

BobS said:


> [/B]I think you mean Rupert. If you know of a law that he has violated, feel free to contact the appropriate authorties. It is not illegal to cheese you off. Would you think that he "owns too much" if he was working the other side of the street? I guess Charlie owns just the right amount. I don't know of any monopoly of Rupert's but again if you do contact the Antitrust Division of the DOJ.
> fin fin


I do think he owns too much. Just in the United States he owns

Fox Broadcasting Company 
85% of Fox Entertainment Group Inc which includes ...
Fox SportsWNVW - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C
KDFW - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KSAZ - Phoenix
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
WPR - Chicago
KTBC - Austin
KVC - Austin Fox Sports Net
Fox Sports South
Fox Sports Pittsburgh
Fox Sports Southeast
Fox Sports Midwest
Fox Sports Rocky Mountain
Fox Sports Arizona
Fox Sports Northwest
Fox Sports West
Fox Sports Detroit
Fox Sports Bay Area (with Rainbow Media Holdings)
Fox Sports Chicago (with Rainbow Media Holdings)
Fox Sports Cincinnati
Fox Sports Intermountain West
Fox Sports New England (with Rainbow Media)
Fox Sports New York (with Rainbow Media)
Fox Sports Ohio (with Rainbow Media)
Fox Sports Southwest (with Rainbow Media)
Madison Square Garden Network (with Rainbow Media)
FiT TV
The Health Network
Fox Sports World
FX
National Geographic's cable channel (50% with GE and National Geographic)
Golf Channel (33%)
The Family Channel
MTM Entertainment
Fox News Channel
FxM
Outdoor Life (34%)
Speedvision (34%)
TV Guide Channel (44% with Liberty Media)
34% of Hughes Electronics (satellite broadcaster DIRECTV with over 11 million subscribers in the US, 81% equity in satellite operator PanAmSat, and Hughes Network Systems)

And he acts in his best interest, which isn't necessary in the public's best interest. I'm sure the DOJ is worried about it :nono2: but I think they should be.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rtd2 said:


> about as tough to understand as why I cant buy And watch ANY channel on dish's birds. I should be allowed to watch WHATEVER channel I pay for! whats next State run TV?


If you walk into a store and try to buy booze before you are 21 or cigarettes before you are 18 you should be turned away. Sure those things are on the shelves of the store and the store can sell them to qualified people but it is against the law to sell them to someone who doesn't qualify.

Satellite television is much the same way ... you can only buy channels for which you qualify. Many channels are national ... and E* and D* have the right to sell you that channel regardless of location. But there are a lot of channels that they cannot sell to you. And if they decide to break the rules and sell any channel to any one they could lose their license to sell those channels to any one including those who qualified.

E* has lost their license to sell distant channels to anyone because they failed to limit their sales to only qualified customers.

BTW: The current laws are designed to respect the private contracts that affiliates have with each other and the network not to compete. Opening it up to "any channel to any one" will require the affiliates to either violate their contract or for the government to override the contracts.

Satellite needs to be able to offer the channels competing cable systems offer. Hopefully this law fixes that problem.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

This really isn't the place for Rupert bashing. Please start a new thread.

This thread is for discussing the legislation that Leahy introduced on Thursday.

Thanks.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rtd2 said:


> about as tough to understand as why I cant buy And watch ANY channel on dish's birds. I should be allowed to watch WHATEVER channel I pay for! whats next State run TV?


There is a concept here that is missing...

Dish Network has a contract to resell WABC only in the New York City market area, as defined by Nielsen research. The only reason WABC is also available nationwide is because of a law that allows the unserved to receive the channel.

In other words, Dish Network does not have a contract to resell WABC nationwide, just like Dish Network does not have a contract to resell ALL programming on Fox Sports New York nor MSG Network nationwide.

Until there is some grasp of carriage agreements and contracts, no one should ever stated they should be allowed to watch whatever channel you wish to pay for.


----------



## ckinninger (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Legal customers (and illegal ones) who purchased at that store were able to consume their booze. Now that the store is closed, the store can no longer sell booze. The difference with satellite is that they force consumption each month. Paying for your month of locals for August doesn't give you any rights to consume locals in October (except what you recorded in August). At the end of each month the "TV cabinet" is empty.


Hey There Mr. Long,

I was just complaining about the penalty for people who bought systems and now can't even use it for what they bought it for. The equipment. We're not talking about the 5th Espn channel here. These are the networks and nobody doesn't watch them.

The law should have been made to penalize Echo and not the consumer.

Whoever said "poor consumer", "get me a kleenex" bla bla... pretty funny hehe but that still doesn't make it a good solution. What was wrong with fining Echo until they correct practices or lose money? Or is this something personal with Echo? When there's a monopoly on something...watchout, bad things are soon to follow.

CK


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ckinninger said:


> The law should have been made to penalize Echo and not the consumer.


How? Massive financial penalty? That is also possible under the current law (along with the permanent injunction).

E* has had a long time to settle this financially - their delay chose the penalty.


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

Red Dwarf said:


> I do think he owns too much. Just in the United States he owns
> 
> Fox Sports Chicago (with Rainbow Media Holdings)


I will agree with what you said before, but that (FSN Chi) channel/station no longer exists. ~ColAvsFan


----------



## Boba Fett (Jul 26, 2006)

I wish they still had Dallas. I only missed one Cowboy game this season, because for some reason Houston did not broadcast it. Does the Mexican channel 57 always broadcast the Cowboy games ? The signal was coming in pretty good and they were giving the Cowboys/Colt game. I hate to miss the upcoming games on FOX in Dec.



sattec said:


> chicago...I've visited with you before, you get houston, right? My set-up is at an mdu I operate in Laredo. DirecTv can only give me LA for a different system/same town. I want SA like TW has, in town.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Red Dwarf said:


> We are not talking about TV signals of your choice. We are talking about having a network signal or no signal at all. That's a big difference.
> 
> And what's with your woody for Dish? Do you have all your local networks? It's easy to stand on "the law" when it doesn't effect you. Some people can't get cable.
> 
> As for people who should go to the Graybar hotel, why not throw Ruprent in for unethical business practices. Fox was the only one who didn't want to sign the settlement with Dish. This guy owns too much and is acting like the monopolist he is.


Anyone who is truely in a "white area" should be allowed to have the nearest DMA's L-I-L station(s). That's how I feel, and I don't think any broadcaster would have a problem with that. If you are not in an area where you can receive service from the local affiliate , via OTA, cable or satellite, that affiliate then has no right to claim you. You should not need a waiver of any type to get the next closest market that is receivable (depending on spotbeam coverage).

All of this fighting about Distant Nets has been a political boondoggle from day one. Truth is, no one wants to deny you network programming. But, stations who buy that programming (to give it away to you in exchange for watching their local commercials) want you to watch them, not some station thousands of miles away. 
Unfortunately, certain providers played loose with the law, and got caught again and again.

As for the current proposed legislation, if it passes, there should be a rider attached that would provide for re-certifying all DNS customers, and a foolproof way to prevent cheating. That should be acceptable to all involved....unless the Courts and NAB were right in the first place  .


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

As expected the opposition to Judge Dimitrouleas granting a delay in the shut down of EchoStar distant network signals was quick to surface. Attorneys for the network affiliates filed the following response in the Florida District Court this morning:

"EchoStar devotes most of its Reply to arguing that its business will be better off if it can delay complying with the Permanent Injunction. But its real purpose is reveled in the following passage: "The additional requested time&#8230;will allow EchoStar the opportunity to continue to pursue a legislative solution to the problem."

EchoStar does not point the Court to any authority whatsoever in support of its request to ignore the law on the books because it is trying to get Congress to change the law. And there is none. Another judge of this Court decisively dispatched the last litigant that made a similarly audacious request: EchoStar's fellow nationwide infringer PrimeTime 24. When PrimeTime 24's lawyers made virtually the identical request of this Court in 1997 to try to block a preliminary injunction, Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson gave a forceful response: "PrimeTime 24 also observes that Congress [is] currently reviewing the cable and satellite compulsory licenses and argues that this Court should therefore stay its hand. PrimeTime 24 has not provided the Court with any precedent for this novel argument, and the Court is aware of none. Congress frequently considers changes in many statutes. But the Court's task is to apply the law as Congress has enacted it. It is not for this Court to speculate about what changes Congress may (or may not) make in the future, or to apply a statute that Congress has not yet enacted."

---- 
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/112006newsletter.cfm#H1 )


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Anyone who is truely in a "white area" should be allowed to have the nearest DMA's L-I-L station(s). That's how I feel, and I don't think any broadcaster would have a problem with that.


Well, of course, broadcasters wouldn't have a problem with a free handout from the government.

But WHY "should" people in white areas be assigned to the nearest DMA or LIL stations? What is this sense of entitlement that broadcasters have to expand their territorial reach beyond the areas they actually "SERVE"???

If broadcasters care so much about these white areas, why don't they petition the FCC to increase their transmitter power and/or height, or build a translator, or otherwise take steps to provide service to the white areas?

But no. Instead, they go to the government and demand that the government enshrine into law the Designated Soviet Areas defined by the People's Committee of Nielsen, so that they may be the exclusive, royalty-free providers of "free" (quoted like "moving") TV even in areas where they do NOT provide a signal.

Whenever DNS is discussed on these boards, we see much wailing and gnashing of teeth over unwarranted government taking of intellectual property, blah, blah, blah, on and on and on. But where is the outrage over this usurpation by broadcasters?

DNS subs pay royalties, LIL subs don't. LIL service, and any associated territorial exclusivity (if territorial exclusivity must be had), "should" encompass all of and *NO MORE THAN* the broadcasters grade B and/or digital coverage area, period, end of sentence.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

joblo said:


> DNS subs pay royalties, LIL subs don't.


You've got a lot of good points, but it's my understanding that LIL subs are subject to retransmission fees if the local station so chooses. (As opposed to must-carry if it's too unpopular to otherwise make a deal with cable/satellite, but don't get me started.)

Theoretically, OTA TV stations are licensed to serve their local viewers. Otherwise stated, the people have given permission to the stations to use a chunk of finite broadcast space for a token license fee. This is usually a win-win situation as good stations enrich the lives of local viewers and are financially rewarded. But in this context, please remember that stations and their viewers are supposed to work together to the benefit of both.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> You've got a lot of good points, but it's my understanding that LIL subs are subject to retransmission fees if the local station so chooses.


Exactly so. But this is my point: why should a station be granted retrans consent rights in an area that it doesn't actually "serve"?


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

joblo said:


> Exactly so. But this is my point: why should a station be granted retrans consent rights in an area that it doesn't actually "serve"?


One reason might be because the stations that do have rights for that area are NOT getting the signal to people in that area.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

waltinvt said:


> One reason might be because the stations that do have rights for that area are NOT getting the signal to people in that area.


So tell me, please, how does this motivate any station to actually provide a signal? This just shifts the cost of "service" to the DBS provider, and eliminates any incentive for the carried station to ever provide a free, terrestrial "service".

#rant-mode ON (With apologies, but sometimes I just get totally fed up).

Btw, I put "service" in quotes because my definition of a "service" is something that expands or enhances my choices and options as consumer rather than curtailing them.

In other words, suppose I'm out in the boondocks somewhere, happily purchasing all the goods and services I want and need by mail order. Now let's say some merchant builds a local store in the area, and prevails upon government authority to prevent purchases by mail of any products carried in the local store, on grounds that otherwise the store couldn't make a profit and thus wouldn't exist.

Now some people will no doubt consider that the convenience of local shopping justifies the reduction in choice. But my point is, if you're one of those people, then YOU should patronize the local store, and keep it in business by signing any exclusive contract on which YOU and the store can agree. But don't take away my option to buy Shredded Wheat by mail just because the local store will get a better quantity discount on Corn Flakes if everybody in town eats Corn Flakes. If you and 75% of the community like Corn Flakes, then please be satisfied with the deal you get with just 75% Corn Flake penetration instead of trying to force 100% Corn Flake compliance!

In other words, all you people who love local TV so much, by all means, *WATCH IT!*

Watch the local commercials, patronize the local advertisers, and heed the local weather alerts to your heart's content. *NOBODY'S TRYING TO STOP YOU.* We, the DNS subs, just want *YOU* to pay the freight with *YOUR* eyeballs, rather than trying to get *YOUR* "free" TV by curtailing *OUR* freedom of choice.

And spare me, please, all the general crapola about how DNS laws are permissive, and there wouldn't be any DNS without government interference in the marketplace, blah, blah, blah.

Because you know what? LIL is just the same. The "market" didn't deliver LIL before government intervention, and without SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA, none of you would have your precious locals, either.

*So how 'bout if all you LIL fans just buy (or keep demanding) your locals and knock off your holier-than-thou attitude towards those of us who enjoy and prefer DNS?*

#rant-mode OFF 
:rant:

Ahhhh&#8230;. I feel so much better now. 

To return to the topic, if the Leahy legislation does not, as the advance publicity would seem to indicate, include grandfathering provisions to preserve the choice I was ranting about, I will be contacting my representatives to register my opposition.

P.S. Walt, I know you're a former DNS sub, so the rant above is not directed at you, personally.


----------



## bobojo (Nov 15, 2006)

I really enjoyed my east and west coast networks (ie. timeshifting, better pic quality, ability to record more shows, see award shows live, top rate newscasters instead of b grade, living in a naive bliss because you don't see all the murders in your local area, etc, etc). 

The east coast networks have a better picture quality since they weren't rebroadcast. Does anyone know if that is the same for HD programming. Will the broadcast from my new HD local be degraded as well or is HD a no loss type of transmission.

Bye Bye DNS, sorry to see ya go after 8 years.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Boba Fett said:


> I wish they still had Dallas. I only missed one Cowboy game this season, because for some reason Houston did not broadcast it. Does the Mexican channel 57 always broadcast the Cowboy games ? The signal was coming in pretty good and they were giving the Cowboys/Colt game. I hate to miss the upcoming games on FOX in Dec.


hmmm channel 57 huh... I don't know. In the mcallen dma, univision carries the dallas games(I think).....hey..we aimed an antenna at mcallen while we were in Laredo and we picked up 6 hd channels from mcallen!!! all of ch 48's feeds(univision, telefutra,fox, mtv3), channel 23's (nbc) and the pbs feed. If you have any kind of height, aim something at mcallen, you might get lucky....you'll need a hd turner box. are you on 59/44 or 359?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> And spare me, please, all the general crapola about how DNS laws are permissive, and there wouldn't be any DNS without government interference in the marketplace, blah, blah, blah.


We could ignore the truth, but that wouldn't save the distants.


joblo said:


> Because you know what? LIL is just the same. The "market" didn't deliver LIL before government intervention, and without SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA, none of you would have your precious locals, either.


Coincidence? Or did the inability to offer distants to everyone drive the market in the direction of offering locals?

Rebroadcasting local TV channels is not required by law. It is entirely optional. Those satellite carriers who choose to offer local TV channels have to do it within the laws.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

joblo said:


> And spare me, please, all the general crapola about how DNS laws are permissive, and there wouldn't be any DNS without government interference in the marketplace, blah, blah, blah.


I'm sorry I insist on clouding up the debate with facts. Accept it or not, if it weren't for the SHVA and its successors, there would be no DNS to save! The SHVA was written specifically because the networks/affiliates were demanding the be removed from C-Band line-ups way back in the 80's. Congress passed the law telling the networks to shove it when it came to rural subscribers with no chance to get the locals via antenna and no access to cable TV. At the same time, they did not take the network's and affiliates property away completely!

Remember, the SHVA and its successors REMOVE the rights of the networks to control their own distribution!

See ya
Tony


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Or did the inability to offer distants to everyone drive the market in the direction of offering locals?


No, it didn't. It drove a lot of people to lie, and it drove the DBS companies towards complicity in those lies, which led to law suits. That, in turn, drove Congress to modify SHVA (w/SHVIA, iirc) to _*permit*_ LIL via a *statutory* copyright license. The market has never moved in the direction of clearing copyrights for rebroadcast of any stations, local or otherwise.

The LIL "market" that exists today is the result of a government taking, and a general DNS market similarly created would be just as valid and just as much in the public interest, imo.



TNGTony said:


> Remember, the SHVA and its successors REMOVE the rights of the networks to control their own distribution!


It's called broadcasting, and it's licensed on *public* airwaves. If networks want total control over their distribution, let them run an upfront subscription service, with easily visible, market-driven subscription fees, rather than pretending to be "free" and burying their costs in a package of locals sold at price parity per government mandate.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Joblo you obviously have your own world you are living in. When you would like to come back to the real world, let us know.

People who lie to get television are a VERY SMALL part of the overall equation. People who get network broadcasts from local channels because providing them distant networks would be ILLEGAL are a much bigger pool. LILs came about as a LEGAL way to fill the desire for broadcast network programming.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Joblo you obviously have your own world you are living in. When you would like to come back to the real world, let us know.


Great ad hominem, James, but do have an actual argument?

What is it I wrote to which you take exception?

What is this "real world" of which you speak, and how do you think it differs from mine?





> People who lie to get television are a VERY SMALL part of the overall equation.
> People who get network broadcasts from local channels because providing them distant networks would be ILLEGAL are a much bigger pool. LILs came about as a LEGAL way to fill the desire for broadcast network programming.


Ah, ok, thanks for the edit.

Today, yes, "movers" are a small percentage. But before LIL, in the 1990s, when all you had to was say you didn't get a good picture on your local stations and hadn't subscribed to cable for 90 days, the percentage was much higher. That's why the law was changed, standards were imposed, law suits were filed, and so on.

The point you and so many others keep ignoring is that LIL is legal for most people, and DNS is illegal for most people, simply because Congress made it that way. And that's largely because the NAB is a strong lobby. But Congress could have gone the Canadian route and opted for bandwidth efficiency over propping up a 50 year old business model. It simply chose not to.

And maybe now is a good time for Congress to revisit that choice.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> The point you and so many others keep ignoring is that LIL is legal for most people, and DNS is illegal for most people, simply because Congress made it that way.


So when were distants legal for all? Back when satellite providers grabbed any signal they wanted to without regard to the source or payment and charged customers? Was that legal?

Congress didn't make the provision of distants illegal - they made the provision of distants to unserved people _legal_ and specified penalties for those who did not follow the law.


joblo said:


> And that's largely because the NAB is a strong lobby. But Congress could have gone the Canadian route and opted for bandwidth efficiency over propping up a 50 year old business model.


Perhaps you should look at Canadian television ownership before touting their system. And see if you can tell the difference in the ways the network/affiliate agreements work in the US vs the way they work in Canada.


joblo said:


> And maybe now is a good time for Congress to revisit that choice.


On that we agree. Satellite needs to be _able_ to carry every channel that cable can carry to each consumer. In many cases cable is REQUIRED to carry local channels that satellite cannot touch because the local station didn't bother to put themselves on a list. That's silly.

I'd also like to see "consent to carry" removed from the law, but I know that won't happen. (Even cable has consent issues.) But allowing satellite to carry nearby locals regardless of market is a good thing.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> So when were distants legal for all? Back when satellite providers grabbed any signal they wanted to without regard to the source or payment and charged customers? Was that legal?


Maybe. I never heard of anyone going to jail back then for retransmitting distant OTA channels.

The problem was that it was not _lawful_ because it reused programming without payment to the content rightsholders. That made the satellite folks liable for civil damages. When those content folks figured that out, they had all the satellite providers over a barrel. Thus came SHVA and its descendents, whereby Congress tried to set up a fair system to balance all parties' interests.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> Maybe. I never heard of anyone going to jail back then for retransmitting distant OTA channels.


There are crimes that don't involve a penalty of going to jail.


----------



## Boba Fett (Jul 26, 2006)

I'm on 359 (Oilton/Mirando). I still use the Heartland cable antenna that we use to pick the Laredo stations. Do you think if I point the antenna towards Mcallen, I might be able to pick up FOX ?



sattec said:


> hmmm channel 57 huh... I don't know. In the mcallen dma, univision carries the dallas games(I think).....hey..we aimed an antenna at mcallen while we were in Laredo and we picked up 6 hd channels from mcallen!!! all of ch 48's feeds(univision, telefutra,fox, mtv3), channel 23's (nbc) and the pbs feed. If you have any kind of height, aim something at mcallen, you might get lucky....you'll need a hd turner box. are you on 59/44 or 359?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> But before LIL, in the 1990s, when all you had to was say you didn't get a good picture on your local stations and hadn't subscribed to cable for 90 days, the percentage was much higher. That's why the law was changed, standards were imposed, law suits were filed, and so on.


Forgive me if I've missed this, but I don't recall the signal standard "qualifications" for distant network service ever changing. When the law was first introduced in 1988, one had to be outside of Grade B range in order to receive a distant network. Just because the satellite companies used a different qualification method than the law does not mean the satellite companies' qualification was legal.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Congress didn't make the provision of distants illegal - they made the provision of distants to unserved people _legal_


This is a truly silly semantic argument, rather like saying God created mountains but not valleys, because hey, valleys are just areas left over from the flat terrain before God started making mountains.

Both DNS and LIL, as *concepts*, are artificial creations of government. The very process of defining DNS made it both legal for some and illegal for others, according to where one lived.



> Satellite needs to be _able_ to carry every channel that cable can carry to each consumer. In many cases cable is REQUIRED to carry local channels that satellite cannot touch because the local station didn't bother to put themselves on a list. That's silly.


Actually, I think it's high time we REQUIRED satellite to carry all analog channels to their full grade B contours, period. The original bandwidth limitations that necessitated a phased rollout of LIL are long since passed.



> I'd also like to see "consent to carry" removed from the law, but I know that won't happen


With this I agree, on both counts. Should get rid of it. Not gonna happen.



Greg Bimson said:


> Forgive me if I've missed this, but I don't recall the signal standard "qualifications" for distant network service ever changing. When the law was first introduced in 1988, one had to be outside of Grade B range in order to receive a distant network.


Well, I wasn't paying attention to the legal language in 1988, but when I subbed to D* in 1994, you had to answer two questions "the right way" in order to get PT24:

1. Have you subscribed to cable in the past 90 days?
2. Can you receive an acceptable picture on your local network channels with a conventional roof antenna?

The second is a paraphrase. Can't remember whether they said "clear picture" or "good picture" or whatever, but obviously, they weren't going to confuse the public by referring to a "signal of grade B intensity". So they left the assessment in the eye of the beholder, which is as it really should have been, imo.

But, of course, that led to all sorts of people receiving service in grade B and even grade A areas, which is what prompted the lawsuit, and also led to changes in the law. Obviously, the cable protection went away, and grandfathering of grade B subs was added in 1999 in response to the 1998 court-ordered shutoff. I think the ILLR predictive model and the limitation to just 2 stations of any one network were also added in 1999.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Boba Fett said:


> I'm on 359 (Oilton/Mirando). I still use the Heartland cable antenna that we use to pick the Laredo stations. Do you think if I point the antenna towards Mcallen, I might be able to pick up FOX ?


I go thru mirando everytime on my way to laredo(lala's mm good food!!)...your talking about a regular tv antenna right, not a wireless cabletv antenna? yes, if your on one of those hills. Your gonna need height for sure....

Is heartland still operating in Laredo, if yes, what name do they go by?


----------



## Boba Fett (Jul 26, 2006)

Don't know, Heartland cable left the antenna after I cancel them about 3 years ago and switch to Dish Network. They did install the antenna pretty high because of some large trees near by. I'm going to try this weekend to see if i can point the antenna to a different direction and see what happens. Thanks for the advice !



sattec said:


> I go thru mirando everytime on my way to laredo(lala's mm good food!!)...your talking about a regular tv antenna right, not a wireless cabletv antenna? yes, if your on one of those hills. Your gonna need height for sure....
> 
> Is heartland still operating in Laredo, if yes, what name do they go by?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> This is a truly silly semantic argument, rather like saying God created mountains but not valleys, because hey, valleys are just areas left over from the flat terrain before God started making mountains.


Yet without mountains there would be no valleys --- just flat terrain. Without SHVA etc carrying distants would be illegal. The valleys of illegal distants would exist despite the lack of mountains of legal carriage.


joblo said:


> Actually, I think it's high time we REQUIRED satellite to carry all analog channels to their full grade B contours, period. The original bandwidth limitations that necessitated a phased rollout of LIL are long since passed.


The first step would be to _allow_ satellite carriers to carry channels to all customers within Grade B. As long as the requirement applies to D* as well as E* I'll sign on to it. After all, it would be a law enacting a "level playing field" with cable. Or at least closer to level than Congress as got so far.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Boba Fett said:


> Don't know, Heartland cable left the antenna after I cancel them about 3 years ago and switch to Dish Network. They did install the antenna pretty high because of some large trees near by. I'm going to try this weekend to see if i can point the antenna to a different direction and see what happens. Thanks for the advice !


do you have an hd tuner box? are you on a hill with a clear shot to the southeast? good luck !!!!! you'll need a big antenna probably....its a full 100 miles to the mcallen transmitters, aim your stuff at corpus too...do a channel scan after you move the antenna, for corpus, use channel 6(cbs/fox) , for mcallen use channel 2 (fox) or use an hd tuner and scan the antenna after you think your aimed at mcallen (fox is hd 48-3 in mcallen). You will see channel 40(telemundo) in rio grande city, they might have cowboy football but it's spanish. Use an amp to boost the signal up!!! or it won't work.

hey bob, do you know where rincon is? west of mcCook?


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

James Long said:


> .The first step would be to _allow_ satellite carriers to carry channels to all customers within Grade B. As long as the requirement applies to D* as well as E* I'll sign on to it. After all, it would be a law enacting a "level playing field" with cable. Or at least closer to level than Congress as got so far.


However , the FCC maps are a lot of crock. I live within 13 miles of the Lubbock, Tx transmission towers and have been put in a grade A signal area. Yet , every one in this part of the country knows that in our canyon there is terrible TV reception. When I asked my locals for waivers in 1999 , they knew how poor reception was in our canyon and granted them immediately. When I asked them for waivers for HD, they again agree. The only ones who are clueless are the FCC map makers. I believe the FCC should be taken to task by Congress to do their job and deliver believable reception grade maps. Their work up to now is as bad as FEMA in Katrina.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

One problem is the DMA maps are done by county. Some friends of mine reside in one DMA so they get that set of stations on satellite. 

However, their local cable company only carries one of the stations (CBS) that satellite does. The rest come from the DMA to the south of them because those stations are closer to them. Many people stick with cable over satellite because of this and don't consider the "defined DMA" to be the stations they watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

odbrv said:


> However , the FCC maps are a lot of crock. I live within 13 miles of the Lubbock, Tx transmission towers and have been put in a grade A signal area. Yet , every one in this part of the country knows that in our canyon there is terrible TV reception. When I asked my locals for waivers in 1999 , they knew how poor reception was in our canyon and granted them immediately.


Individual sites can be tested if the FCC's estimations of Grade A or Grade B are not accurate.

Lubbock locals are available via satellite (148° dish required). Is there any particular reason why you should be able to get "distants" from another city simply because you live in a valley? HDs make sense (until Lubbock HDs are uplinked) if you have no OTA signal at your site. But the networks ARE available to you via local channels --- why would you have more rights than another customer in your market who just happens to be in a better location?

SHVERA changed that for new customers ... one cannot get distants if their own locals are available (without waivers). Even if they are in the far reaches of the DMA outside of all Grade B coverage.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

odbrv said:


> However , the FCC maps are a lot of crock. I live within 13 miles of the Lubbock, Tx transmission towers and have been put in a grade A signal area. Yet , every one in this part of the country knows that in our canyon there is terrible TV reception. When I asked my locals for waivers in 1999 , they knew how poor reception was in our canyon and granted them immediately. When I asked them for waivers for HD, they again agree. The only ones who are clueless are the FCC map makers. I believe the FCC should be taken to task by Congress to do their job and deliver believable reception grade maps. Their work up to now is as bad as FEMA in Katrina.


And what dirty secrets did you have on the GM's of our locals to be able to get *waivers* from our good buddies. Yes LIL is available in almost VHS quality on 148. :rolling:


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Without SHVA etc carrying distants would be illegal.


No, it wouldn't be illegal, just unlicensed.

While the use of "legal" and "illegal" as everyday synonyms for "licensed" and "unlicensed" makes a certain sense in the context where a license of some sort actually exists, because for all practical purposes, the unlicensed transmissions might as well be illegal, the use of the term "illegal" in the general sense implies that there exists or would exist some prohibition in the law regarding distant service or out of market distribution, and that is not, never has been, and will not be the case, even without SHVA licensing.

Or to put it another way, the creation of the DNS and LIL licenses under SHVA and its descendants pre-empted any market forces that might have provided such service by other means. So for all practical purposes and except in very limited circumstances, broadcast retransmissions by satellite that fall outside of SHVA licensing are now illegal. But to suggest that a general condition of illegality prevailed prior to the advent of SHVA licensing is simply not accurate.

Btw, we should find out in about a week whether E*'s CBS HD service constitutes one of those very limited exceptions, as TNGTony has always maintained, or whether it, too, is provided pursuant to the 119 license, as Greg Bimson and I and various others believe. (Assuming, that is, that E* complies with the law in this regard, admittedly never an entirely safe assumption where E* is concerned.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> No, it wouldn't be illegal, just unlicensed.


Semantics --- how about settle on "not right". Has a court ever ruled that pre-SHVA retransmission of distants was an acceptable act? Everyone who retransmits distants and locals does it under the law that allows it - or they lose in court.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> And what dirty secrets did you have on the GM's of our locals to be able to get *waivers* from our good buddies. Yes LIL is available in almost VHS quality on 148. :rolling:


Renewed the SD waivers in 1999 prior to Lubbock having locals in 2004. Got the original waivers to get C-band networks. So up until the injunction I was grandfathered to receive both locals and distants I had in place in 1999. Got the HD waivers in 2006 to protect CBSHD and looking to the future for ABCHD,NBCHD,and FOXDH. Didn't have to bribe anyone. I have statements from 3 OTA antenna installers that I cannot get HD signals. I have tried to spend my hard earned money to get Lubbock HD to no avail. A couple of the stations employees had relatives who lived in our canyon and could not get a viewable signal. 
After my e-mails about my situation were ignored by the FCC, I asked each of the stations to inform the FCC about our area . Still no change in the FCC maps. I am still in a grade A area. I bet this senario gets repeated many times across our nation.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

odbrv said:


> Renewed the SD *analog *waivers in 1999 prior to Lubbock having locals in 2004. Got the original waivers to get C-band networks. So up until the injunction I was grandfathered to receive both locals and distants I had in place in 1999. Got the HD *digital *waivers in 2006 to protect CBSHD and looking to the future for ABCHD,NBCHD,and FOXDH. Didn't have to bribe anyone.


Lubbock is not carried by E* in "HD." That is your barrier. Whatever the future holds, I think provision of a distant "HD" signal to a subscriber because his chosen provider doesn't carry the local one is a nonstarter. This is why as part of E*'s penance for new legislation there ought to be a date certain for provision of LIL both analog and digital with the analog dropping off in a little over two years.



odbrv said:


> I have statements from 3 OTA antenna installers that I cannot get HD *digital *signals. I have tried to spend my hard earned money to get Lubbock HD to no avail.


Heck, I'm an "antenna installer." To the extent that an onsite survey is permitted/required, the individual would be chosen by the affiliate/satellite company. You are really out of the loop. Anybody can get cousin Fred to signoff on a "less than Grade B signal.



odbrv said:


> A couple of the stations employees had relatives who lived in our canyon and could not get a viewable signal.


Even an affidavit from the affiliate VP for Customer Abuse doesn't count.



odbrv said:


> After my e-mails about my situation were ignored by the FCC, I asked each of the stations to inform the FCC about our area .


The FCC cannot help you. The maps are predictive. There is no provision for providing individualized maps. You would need an onsite survey.



odbrv said:


> Still no change in the FCC maps.


That should come as no surprise.



odbrv said:


> I am still in a grade A area. I bet this senario gets repeated many times across our nation.


Perhaps but it doesn't really matter. The procedures are set up to handle the vast majority of cases. If you have special circumstance there is an alternative available to you. Why not use it?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

odbrv said:


> Renewed the SD waivers in 1999 prior to Lubbock having locals in 2004. Got the original waivers to get C-band networks. So up until the injunction I was grandfathered to receive both locals and distants I had in place in 1999. Got the HD waivers in 2006 to protect CBSHD and looking to the future for ABCHD,NBCHD,and FOXDH. Didn't have to bribe anyone. I have statements from 3 OTA antenna installers that I cannot get HD signals. I have tried to spend my hard earned money to get Lubbock HD to no avail. A couple of the stations employees had relatives who lived in our canyon and could not get a viewable signal.
> After my e-mails about my situation were ignored by the FCC, I asked each of the stations to inform the FCC about our area . Still no change in the FCC maps. I am still in a grade A area. I bet this senario gets repeated many times across our nation.


Just curious who installed the C-band system that you had? Too bad you're not set up to receive private messages. No bribes mentioned just jokin about if you had to blackmail the GM's at the stations. It is near impossible to get a waiver out of our locals.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> Semantics --- how about settle on "not right".


The difference between illegal and unlawful (or unlicensed) is more than just semantics.

In the olden days, if you were to copy a copyrighted cartoon and put it in the middle of the cartoon compilation you were selling, you would be liable for civil damages. That meant that IF the rightsholder decided to sue you, the worst that would happen is that you would lose your life savings and everything you own. If it seemed unlikely that a rightsholder would notice and if you had your shell corporations set up right, then you, the infringer, had some decent advantages. It was harder for rightsholders to keep going after every scofflaw with a flea market booth.

Since then, rightsholders have persuaded Congress to criminalize some of these activities. Now infringers can be thrown in jail while things get sorted out. (See http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45298,00.html) One of the effects of criminalization is to swing almost all of the leverage to the rightsholders.

And I've said all this to underline that there is a big difference, it's sometimes relevant to these copyright-laden discussions, and clarity of terms in a debate should never be unwelcome. Now, :backtotop


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

You are missing an essential point. A crime is an action committed against the state. While we speak of the "victim" of the crime, the real parties, as seen by case captions are (something like) "The People vs. John Q. Criminal." Individuals can seek redress (such as compensation) in a civil action against the same individual without regard to whether or not a criminal case was conducted (or was successful - think O.J.) What you have in this case is an individual engaging in criminal activity - that which has been proscribed by a legislative body (usually) because it is considered inherently bad, e.g. murder (_malum in se_) or because the public policy of a society has deemed it so, e.g. speeding* (_malum prohibitum_). *Of course the offense does not have to be defined as a crime and often is considered both a criminal and an administrative offense (a kind of hybrid) giving the prosecutor different options to pursue (a criminal charge invokes constitutional protections). And people are "thrown" in jail in such a case only if they are flight risk or other extenuating circumstances exist.



FTA Michael said:


> The difference between illegal and unlawful (or unlicensed) is more than just semantics.
> 
> In the olden days, if you were to copy a copyrighted cartoon and put it in the middle of the cartoon compilation you were selling, you would be liable for civil damages. That meant that IF the rightsholder decided to sue you, the worst that would happen is that you would lose your life savings and everything you own. If it seemed unlikely that a rightsholder would notice and if you had your shell corporations set up right, then you, the infringer, had some decent advantages. It was harder for rightsholders to keep going after every scofflaw with a flea market booth.
> 
> ...


----------



## tskill (Nov 10, 2006)

All this is very interesting hmmmmm... but really I'm guessing no one has any new news on the impending removal of the distant network channels?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Buh bye on Friday. Nothing stopping that at the moment.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Yup! Congress is out of session for two weeks, then its a short lame-duck session before Congress adjurns (and this bill dies). When the new Congress convenes in January the bill would have to be reintroduced.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The text of the bill still has not been posted. We're arguing over a press release!


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

dough_boy747 said:


> I thank it's a shame that some people that will not stick with others that have no local channels in there part of the country, it should be the same for all it doesn't matter where you live, we all should have the same kind of programming, When we see our brothrs and sisters in need, we are American, we should make sure or country men have the same as we have. What is so sad we will help another country that we go to war with, and make sure they have all that they need but we will hurt one another when we need just a local channel. It could only help us if that person had the same axsis to the same infomation that we have weather we live in a city or out in the county. We should help suport things like this we do when it comes a starm or any other kind of problem that happens


It's just stupid network TV.


----------



## Jocelyn (Nov 27, 2006)

BobS, just curious, I had an onsite survey/signal test done in 1999 with E* and had a valid Grade B waiver for DNS. Never changed/dropped DNS since that time. What alternative's to which you referred are available to me an E* subscriber under these circumstances? Switch to D*? If I call D*, how do I get to someone who can answer whether they will accept these waivers, and should I trust them?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Jocelyn said:


> What alternative's to which you referred are available to me an E* subscriber under these circumstances?


Your alternative is your local Los Angeles channels. If you are looking for a second set of local channels, there isn't an alternative. But you certainly aren't going to be lacking network channels.


----------



## DishRick (Oct 30, 2006)

Just came across a message on distants on a local CBS website in Salisbury, Maryland. Just thought I would pass it along.....

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5737629


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Nice find.

"If Echostar/Dish Network informs you that the local stations will not cooperate with them for carriage, challenge them to conference call you with me personally." --Rick Jordan, VP/GM, WBOC and FOX21

Does this mean that when Dish ever starts serving that market, those stations will waive any retransmission fees?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

No, it means that if Dish Network says they aren't offering Salisbury locals because the stations are being difficult, then the management of WBOC/FOX21 are saying Dish Network is lying.

I have a feeling that the local channels on the MD Eastern Shore would love to be available, without much in the way of retransmission fees.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

DishRick said:


> Just came across a message on distants on a local CBS website in Salisbury, Maryland. Just thought I would pass it along.....
> 
> http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5737629


Here is a simular story.. involving different market:

--
KPTM FOX 42 EchoStar Statement

Effective Friday, December 1st, DISH subscribers will regrettably no longer be able to receive KPTM FOX 42 through DISH. This is because we have been unable to reach agreement with EchoStar to extend our existing carriage arrangement with them beyond midnight on Thursday, November 30, when it expires.

Rest assured that we have negotiated for continued carriage long and hard and in good faith, but time has run out and we have no deal. As a result, our Station will no longer be carried by DISH as of 12:01 am Friday.

--
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.kptm.com/news/local/4770516.html )


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

KPTM is with Pappas Broadcasting. This was another of the station groups that gave Dish Network a hard time over the years. If Dish Network loses FOX in Omaha, it is possible they'll also lose FOX in Lincoln, Fresno and Sioux City.

This might not be very good.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

Those really are starting to come up like mushrooms:

----

KPTH News

ATTENTION: DISH NETWORK CUSTOMERS
DISH CUSTOMERS STAND TO LOSE LOCAL PAPPAS AFFILIATES

Pappas Telecasting Companies, the largest privately-held, commercial television broadcast group in the United States, advised its viewers that effective Friday, December 1, DISH Network customers will lose access to network-affiliated broadcast stations that DISH has been illegally importing from other television markets. This stems from a federal court ruling that DISH has engaged in a pattern of violating the copyright laws of the United States by illegally retransmitting network signals throughout the country. Under the ruling, the court mandated that all "distant" network signals be removed from the DISH Network, effective December 1.

Additionally, effective Friday, December 1, DISH subscribers will lose access to all Pappas stations currently being carried on the DISH Network....

-- etc ---

...The stations and markets affected are KAZA/Los Angeles; KTNC/San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose; KAZH/Houston; WCWG/Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem; KMPH and KFRE/Fresno-Visalia California; KCWI/Des Moines-Ames, Iowa; KPTM and KXVO/Omaha; KDBC/El Paso; KHGI and KTVG/Lincoln & Hastings-Kearney, Nebraska; KREN/Reno, Nevada; and KPTH and KMEG/Sioux City, Iowa.

This situation only affects DISH Network subscribers. Viewers of Pappas stations have other options available to them:

1. Free Over-The-Air Television. This free option is always available, and free over-the-air reception of our channels can always be enhanced, if necessary, with an indoor or outdoor antenna. Call your local Pappas station for tips on getting the best reception using an antenna.

2. Cable Television. Information about the cable television options in each community can be found by going to www.ncta.com.

3. Satellite Television. Other than DISH Network, satellite television can also be received from DirecTV. Information about DirecTV can be found by visiting www.directv.com.

In the Los Angeles and Houston markets, viewers have a fourth option: Broadband Internet Providers, such as Verizon and AT&T, which now also offer television services.

---

( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.kpth.com/news/4770551.html )


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

> *http://www.kptm.com/news/local/4770516.html*:
> Rest assured that we have negotiated for continued carriage long and hard and in good faith, but time has run out and we have no deal. As a result, our Station will no longer be carried by DISH as of 12:01 am Friday.
> 
> As a consequence, the Court has ordered DISH Network to stop providing network signals from other markets effective this Friday. This decision has been mandated by the federal courts in accordance with federal law.


I fail to understand how the distant injunction is a "consequence" of E*'s having no carriage contract with KPTM.





> *http://www.kpth.com/news/4770551.html*:
> Harry J. Pappas, Chairman and CEO of Pappas Telecasting Companies, said, "It may surprise our DISH viewers to know that, while DISH is charging them $5.99 per month just for their free local broadcast stations like the ones owned or operated by our company, DISH is unwilling to pay even a modest price - less than 19 cents out of the $6 per month they charge their customers - to the local stations that must spend millions of dollars to buy - or to produce - this programming.


The DNS royalty is only 20 cents. So, in other words, Pappas would have subscribers pay essentially same amount for the so-called "free" television they are "serving", as "unserved" subs pay to the rights holders for service in areas where no station has paid for broadcast rights and presumably no local advertiser is sponsoring the programming.

Someone tell me again, why do we need local ad supported television "service"?


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

joblo said:


> I fail to understand how the distant injunction is a "consequence" of E*'s having no carriage contract with KPTM.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the way it is..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Moving to a new phase ... we have full text of the legislation being proposed, courtesy of the US Government ...

Please continue the discussion *here*


----------

