# Court Rules in Distant Nets Case, TiVo Pushes Litigation Ahead



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The National Association of Broadcasters said the U.S. 
Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled in favor of affiliate 
associations for ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC, along 
with the FOX network, in a copyright lawsuit filed 
against EchoStar.

The NAB said the decision could prevent EchoStar's 
DISH Network from delivering distant network TV 
signals to its satellite subscribers.

Specifically, the 11th Circuit Court affirmed a 2003 
finding against EchoStar by a U.S. District judge that 
ordered the satellite TV company to turn off ineligible 
subscribers receiving distant network signals. NAB said
the appellate court went beyond the lower court in 
barring EchoStar from delivering distant network TV
signals.

The court said, "As if the magnitude of its ineligible
subscriber base were insufficiently disconcerting,
we have found no indication that EchoStar was
ever interested in complying with the (Satellite Home
Viewer Improvement) Act. We seem to have
discerned a patter' and practice of violating the 
act in every way imaginable."

Following the ruling, NAB President and CEO David
Rehr said the association "is pleased with the 
unanimous 11th Circuit Court decision. This opinion 
affirms the importance of localism in television, and 
vindicates an eight year effort by TV broadcasters to 
stop EchoStar's blatant and massive abuse of copyright
law."

Because of the late nature of the news, there was no 
comment from EchoStar.

Meanwhile, news reports said TiVo asked a U.S. 
District judge to shut down the DVR service offered 
by EchoStar. TiVo won a jury verdict in April that 
found EchoStar had infringed on one of its patents
pertaining to digital recorder technology. There also
was no comment available from EchoStar concerning
the case.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

This is news to me, but at least I have my waivers from all 4 networks. So I can still receive my distance networks without them being turned off. Thank goodness..


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

MSoper72 said:


> This is news to me, but at least I have my waivers from all 4 networks. So I can still receive my distance networks without them being turned off. Thank goodness..


Actually, if you read the court's opinion, no you won't be able to receive DNS from E* under any circumstances.

From the Court's Opinion:


> Because, as discussed, we come to the unavoidable conclusion that EchoStar engaged in a "pattern or practice" of SHVA violations, we hold that the district court is required to issue a nationwide permanent injunction barring the provision of distant network programming pursuant to the Act's statutory license.


From the Act:


> If a satellite carrier engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of delivering a primary transmission made by a network station . . . to subscribers who are not eligible to receive the transmission . . . , then . . . if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a substantially nationwide basis, the court shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier, for private home viewing, of the primary transmissions of any primary network station affiliated with the same network . . . .


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

I am still receiving all 4 major networks at the moment. So we shall see what happens.


----------



## capman (Mar 23, 2005)

I JUST GOT MY DISTANT NETS. TURNED OFF!although I have waivers for abc cbs and fox they said it did not matter.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Will this affect the superstations??


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

MSoper72 said:


> I am still receiving all 4 major networks at the moment. So we shall see what happens.


As am I (or I was last night - didn't check this morning before going to work). Apparently the Appeals Court has sent this back to the District level for the injunction to be issued, so it may take some time for that to happen.

Assuming that this sticks, and we do lose DNS, I would hope that E* will allow DNS subs to break their contracts without penalty so that they may seek the service that they have lost from another provider. Of course, that will never happen...


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

tomcrown1 said:


> Will this affect the superstations??


It shouldn't. The opinion did not address superstations, and the superstations were not listed as plaintiffs in the original case.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

Interesting - The "Add Local Programming" page is experiencing technical difficulties, again. We'll have to see where this goes.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Well all my distants are still there but for how long. I just do not understand how this ruling will affect all DNS subs. Does this ruling trump SHEVRA?


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

I would check to see if your billing and service address match your waivers. This might be the reason if your distants were shut off.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> Well all my distants are still there but for how long. I just do not understand how this ruling will affect all DNS subs. Does this ruling trump SHEVRA?


It doesn't "trump" SHVERA. It actually leverages language present in that act (or possibly its predecessor) to require the injuction against E*.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

BoisePaul said:


> It doesn't "trump" SHVERA. It actually leverages language present in that act (or possibly its predecessor) to require the injuction against E*.


So how does this affect people with waivers and in true white areas? I thought that the SHEVRA gave the satellite companies a statutory license to provide DNS to eligible subs. If I am eligible then this ruling should not affect me.


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

How I read this ruling. It was to only effect NON eligable subs. Plus, my service, billing address all 4 match the address on my waivers. Until mine are turned off. I'm not going to worry.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

MSoper72 said:


> How I read this ruling. It was to only effect NON eligable subs. Plus, my service, billing address all 4 match the address on my waivers. Until mine are turned off. I'm not going to worry.


It will be a matter of "wait and see," though _"a nationwide permanent injunction barring the provision of distant network programming pursuant to the Act's statutory license"_ sounds pretty much like they pull the plug on everyone.


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

BoisePaul said:


> It will be a matter of "wait and see," though _"a nationwide permanent injunction barring the provision of distant network programming pursuant to the Act's statutory license"_ sounds pretty much like they pull the plug on everyone.


If this permanent injunction has taken place. My distance would have already been pulled. However, I'm on the telephone with my friend who works at my local cbs station and see what he has heard on this issue.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

The key words are "a nationwide permanent injunction barring the provision of distant network programming *pursuant to the Act's statutory license*"

I believe all E* has to do is requalifiy all their DNS subs. The ones who are truly eligible should not have to worry because we are eligible because of SHEVRA.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Uh, the key words are the entire phrase. The injunction would bar Dish Network's use of the statutory license. Which, in turn, remove all distant networks from Dish Network.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

cj9788 said:


> The key words are "a nationwide permanent injunction barring the provision of distant network programming *pursuant to the Act's statutory license*"
> 
> I believe all E* has to do is requalifiy all their DNS subs. The ones who are truly eligible should not have to worry because we are eligible because of SHEVRA.


If you violate the law, there are penalties. They are spelled out and the court cannot decide to allow what you say if they find there were substantial violations. They must issue the injunction against delivery of the Distant Nets Nationwide. With all the posts about getting 3 or 4 of the same network via the website and who knows what else has been going on, how can we expect anything else?


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Wonder if this would effect CBSHD?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

MSoper72 said:


> If this permanent injunction has taken place. My distance would have already been pulled. However, I'm on the telephone with my friend who works at my local cbs station and see what he has heard on this issue.


It sounds like the Court sent it back to the lower court for the lower court to issue the injunction. The injunction apparently not been issued, yet.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> Wonder if this would effect CBSHD?


It seems likely to me that it would. CBSHD has been delivered by a private agreement, according to rumor, but it seems that the statutory license would have to provide the copyright clearance used in the delivery.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

JohnH said:


> If you violate the law, there are penalties. They are spelled out and the court cannot decide to allow what you say if they find there were substantial violations. They must issue the injunction against delivery of the Distant Nets Nationwide. With all the posts about getting 3 or 4 of the same network via the website and who knows what else has been going on, how can we expect anything else?


Although I agree the penalties are spelled out, the courts have used some pretty tortured logic to justify rulings that don't follow how the law was written.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Nick said:


> Following the ruling, NAB President and CEO David
> Rehr said the association "is pleased with the
> unanimous 11th Circuit Court decision. This opinion
> affirms the importance of localism in television...."
> ...


What a load of Horsepucky!! :nono2: Yeah sure Mr. Rehr, you're worried about protecting "localism".:sure: Bull$h!t! Yeah because all those "local" channels provide just soooooo much local content!:sure: Let's be honest here in most markets the amount of actual local content on all the "local" channels probably wouldn't even fill up one full day of programming for one channel let alone 4 (if we're talking just about the big 4 nets here). Most of the programming on those "local" channels are nationally based programs and of course those wonderful infomercials late overnights. No what's being "protected" here in their twisted blind minds is an antiquated distribution system for national programming. Of course the biggest "threat" in their minds to the status quo is satellite, so they go after them so they can continue to line their own pockets without having to change their business model for a little longer. One of the sad things about this is that the NAB is so focused on digging in their heels so they don't have to budge that they're blind to the fact that they are cutting their own throats. They found that there was numerous "violations" happening with Dish customers, guess what that means?! That this is something that people want! If they were smart they'd embrace this and allow people to get whatever local programming channels they wanted. It seems it could open a whole new revenue stream for them. This would allow for people who move to be able to have some of those channels from their hometown. This would allow for people who don't work hours that allow them to watch "primetime programming" in their time zone to watch it when their schedule allows or for that matter give them more options as to when to watch or record programming when there's multiple conflicts of things that a viewer wants to watch. Is it possible that if they allowed this that there might be some losses amoung local stations? Oh probably, but the strong ones would survive and prosper in a national market and probably make more revenue than before. I mean come on even if people were allowed to pick up distant channels most people would still want their local channels and continue to watch them, it's not like if they don't get the artificial protection from the NAB that all the sudden they're all going to go out of business. But what do they do? They continue to stand rigidly to the old ways with blinders on, ulitmately this will be their undoing. Sure by winning this case against Dish they might've made more difficult for people for the moment. But with things like the internet and technology like Slingbox people will once again find a way to get what they want. And not only that but by "winning" this round they've encouraged the developement of even more ways for people to get what they want. Even worse they've encouraged people to get up from in front of their tv's and go to their computers to get what they want, so what they've done is resulting in people ignoring their tv's and the local channels on them altogether while they go online to find what they are looking for. It's crazy that those idiots at the NAB would be celebrating this as a victory for them when they've so very clearly shot themselves in the foot and it seems they only way they know how to make this "right" in their minds is to shoot some other people's feet as well so they can experience the same pain they're going through as well. I'm sorry but this all seems soooooo shortsighted on the NAB's part, maybe this will help them briefly in the short term but over the long haul they're just condeming themselves to become dinosaurs. :rant:


----------



## voyagerbob (Jul 14, 2002)

There is now an automated recording about distants when you call 800-333-DISH.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

What does it say? Some of us are not at our Account phone.


----------



## voyagerbob (Jul 14, 2002)

JohnH said:


> What does it say? Some of us are not at our Account phone.


You can call the 800 number then enter your account phone number. It then asks if I want to listen to the message. It basically says.

We are evaluating the possible impact of recent court ruling. Dish will try to protect your rights and look at other options. Customer Service Reps have no further informaiton. They will keep this message updated with the latest info.

Voyagerbob


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

My guess is that if you are entitled to receive local affilates for the major networks then you will not be able to receive the distant stations.

Personally I believe the days of local broadcasting are numbered and this is only delaying the enevatable time when local broadcasting will become a thing of the past. It is already happening with radio and some day will happen with tv as well. When high bandwidth networks and streaming technology improve to include really good video you will be able to tune in any channel any where in the world. The technology is out there just waiting to happen.

Wayne


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

This ruling may change my plans. I live in Palm Desert, Ca. What ever BEV did to their Sats., I have lost them. I cancelled my subscription and planed to sell my receiver on E-Bay.

If this ruling stands, I may try other options. My question is: Has anyone in this area tried a 30", or larger, Dish, for BEV? Would it solve the problem? This ruling SUCKS!


----------



## AdamGott (Nov 30, 2005)

This is going to really piss me off if I lose my CBSHD east and west feeds! It took about twenty waiver requests to get it and I would hate to have to restart that process because I always figured it was probably an accident that they let me get it in the first place.

I wouldn't be so upset but our locals just plain suck. ABC and NBC are 'kind-of' hi-def but they have lots of problems. NBC won't do it for 'regular' events because they do not have a method of timeshifting East or West coast network HD backhauls and ABC has some audio sync problems that make it unwatchable much of the time.

Our local FOX doesn't even do a digital broadcast yet and probably won't (they are owned by the same company that owns CBS in our area I think) for a long time.

If I can't get HD from the locals I should be able to shop elsewhere.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Write your Congressman and the FCC. The NAB has conned a judge into undoing the law, that while flawed, was better than the mandatory monopoly that the NAB wanted to create.

Do it NOW! Or you are stuck never having your east coast Simpsons or Family Guy timers work during football season, being held hostage by local holy roller broadcasters that find a TV movie "offensive" to their delicate sensibilities, or being constantly interrupted during shows about things like transit strikes whether or not they are important to you. If you hear about an Earthquake near your Mom's house in LA, do you want to wait until New York gets around to talking about the story in general terms, or would you rather tune in to the newscast based in that market to get the most relevant information?

Man, this really p*sses me off. I thought I hated the NAB before. Now I hate them more than Al Franken hates Dubya.


----------



## nova828 (Mar 29, 2004)

Now, i'm confused, does this mean that Dish will actually shut off the distant networks? As in they will not exist anymore? Or are they shutting off people with waivers yet still able to receive locals via satellite or antenna? 

Here is my situation: I live in Eastport, Maine and locals are not availible and not receivable over the air at all, and I can't get cable out here. So distant networks are my only options for getting network programming. I am eligible to get the complete east-west package without any waiver and have not yet been cut off yet. But if I am, what are my options? Could I "move" to New York City and get the networks that way? I would of course prefer to receive the Bangor or Portland local channels, but that is not offered as an option for me.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

If the injunction goes through, there will be no distant networks on DiSH Network.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

nova828 said:


> I live in Eastport, Maine and locals are not availible


Yeah, but you can get all the Raye's mustard you would ever want...that's got to be worth something!

Seriously, I'd "move" to Waterville and get the Portlands.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

cj9788 said:


> So how does this affect people with waivers and in true white areas? I thought that the SHEVRA gave the satellite companies a statutory license to provide DNS to eligible subs. If I am eligible then this ruling should not affect me.


I turned off all disnets last month because I wasn't watching them.


----------



## jc17981 (Jun 27, 2002)

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf


----------



## robert koerner (Aug 20, 2005)

The concept of local stations seems quaint.

The only local programming is news, which I record, and use the 30 skip to bypass the boring parts, like fires, crimes, trials, sports, talking politicians, traffic reports, wx reports other than an on screen display of wx for the next 5 days.

I can easily get the local 30 minute news down to about 6 or 7 minutes.

I keep hoping that TV shows are going to wake up to their fair is being recorded, and skip the silly mention of what we'll see next in the show when the commercials are done. WHO knows. They might even figure out we do not watch credits of a show, and make something interesting for that time.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

tomcrown1 said:


> Will this affect the superstations??


Why would it? The basis for carrying the superstations is completely different. But I knew someone would bring this up.


----------



## music_beans (Mar 21, 2003)

What would probably happen to DISH if they don't drop the distants despite court order?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

The best cast scenario if they do that, they are slapped with a monthly fine or something of the sort, until they stop. Worst case scenario, their satellite slots are revoked by the FCC and their business license is revoked as well.


----------



## alexdw (Jan 31, 2006)

I suggest that those of us who enjoy distant network programming petition AGAINST the renewal of broadcast licenses for the stations involved in this suit. Slum-lord locals can't claim you in their Grade B service area if they can't legally provide a signal, now can they?


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html

http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Let the FCC and your elected officials know your outrage.


----------



## nova828 (Mar 29, 2004)

billpa said:


> Yeah, but you can get all the Raye's mustard you would ever want...that's got to be worth something!
> 
> Seriously, I'd "move" to Waterville and get the Portlands.


Yeah, I tried to "move" to get Portland locals, but turns out I would need to have a SUPERdish installed in order to receive them. I'm not gonna worry too much now that my distants stayed on long enough to watch the season finale of "Lost". But if they do get pulled and Bangor locals aren't up by September (There is nothing on the networks that interests me this summer) I will probably try to "move" to Boston. Anyone know if the Boston spotbeam will reach me in Eastport, Maine?


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

The official court release:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

As of 4am my time. I'm still receiving my distant networks. So, I'm still knocking on wood.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

nova828 said:


> Yeah, I tried to "move" to get Portland locals, but turns out I would need to have a SUPERdish installed in order to receive them. I'm not gonna worry too much now that my distants stayed on long enough to watch the season finale of "Lost". But if they do get pulled and Bangor locals aren't up by September (There is nothing on the networks that interests me this summer) I will probably try to "move" to Boston. Anyone know if the Boston spotbeam will reach me in Eastport, Maine?


Portland locals have moved to the new 110 satellite and according to this map you are close to the edge of both the Boston and the new Portland spotbeams.


----------



## capman (Mar 23, 2005)

I was told that I could have DISTANTS ABC ,CBS FOX / WAIVERS. or LOCALS DMA PADUCAH,KY. but not both ,which would be fine but I cant get a waiver for NBC. and I cant get my LOCAL NBC by itself. I think they should find a way to offer LOCALS al cart.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

capman said:


> I was told that I could have DISTANTS ABC ,CBS FOX / WAIVERS. or LOCALS DMA PADUCAH,KY. but not both...


This is why E* just got in trouble. If E* offers your local channels, and you can pick them up over the satellite, you are not supposed to be able to get ANY of the distant networks. Period.



MSoper72 said:


> As of 4am my time. I'm still receiving my distant networks. So, I'm still knocking on wood.


This decision simply remanded the case to the lower court. It is the lower court's responsibility now to write the removal requirements. This won't happen immediately; and considering how slow our courts system works, it may be quite some time.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Kheldar said:


> This is why E* just got in trouble. If E* offers your local channels, and you can pick them up over the satellite, you are not supposed to be able to get ANY of the distant networks. Period.


This is NOT why E* is in trouble. You posted the link to the ruling....It is about things that happened between 1998 and 2002. The scenario you describe was not imposed until last year's revision to SHIVA.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

MikeW said:


> This is NOT why E* is in trouble. You posted the link to the ruling....It is about things that happened between 1998 and 2002. The scenario you describe was not imposed until last year's revision to SHIVA.


Mea culpa. I apologize, you are correct.

Here is the text of the SHVIA law from 1999 (in PDF), pages 9-10, listing the possible penalties:


> ''(2) PATTERN OF VIOLATIONS.-If a satellite carrier engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of secondarily transmitting to the public a primary transmission embodying a performance or display of a work made by a television broadcast station to subscribers who do not reside in that station's local market, and are not subject to statutory licensing under section 119 or a private licensing agreement, then in addition to the remedies under paragraph (1)-
> *''(A) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a substantially nationwide basis, the court-
> ''(i) shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of that television broadcast station (and if such television broadcast station is a network station, all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network); and
> ''(ii) may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was carried out;*


So, assuming for a moment that I am reading section (2)(A)(i) correctly, not only can the court block them from carrying the distant networks, but also "all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network", which means they could lose the right to carry all local ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC affiliates nationwide.

D* has been losing customers to E* because of this blatantly illegal misuse of the networks for years. As a D* employee I may be biased, but it is good to see E* finally get what is coming to them.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

And customers tied into long term agreements who have no fault in the matter will have to pay.

If broadcast networks were taken away, it would kill E*, and then we are stuck with Rupert controlling the only satellite provider.... a situation that the Justice Dept. said was a monopoly when E* tried to do it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

HD_Wayne said:


> My guess is that if you are entitled to receive local affilates for the major networks then you will not be able to receive the distant stations.
> 
> Personally I believe the days of local broadcasting are numbered and this is only delaying the enevatable time when local broadcasting will become a thing of the past. It is already happening with radio and some day will happen with tv as well. When high bandwidth networks and streaming technology improve to include really good video you will be able to tune in any channel any where in the world. The technology is out there just waiting to happen.
> 
> Wayne


Not with the NAB in business.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Hope the final ruling is specific enough to allow the WB Distants to continue.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

robert koerner said:


> The concept of local stations seems quaint.
> 
> The only local programming is news, which I record, and use the 30 skip to bypass the boring parts, like fires, crimes, trials, sports, talking politicians, traffic reports, wx reports other than an on screen display of wx for the next 5 days.
> 
> ...


Local news isn't worth much anymore, like you said. Ihate the cute animals stories they shove down our throats!


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

BobMurdoch said:


> And customers tied into long term agreements who have no fault in the matter will have to pay.


This is the part that bugs me. I've got about 15 months left on an 18 month contract, however, if distants go away than I wish to go away as well. In my opinion, though, E* broke the law, albeit a very stupid law that I wholeheartedly disagree with. That aside, the punishment is already defined, and I don't like it. Any chance that if this goes through, those of us still under contract who have subscribed to DNS for some time will be left out of those contracts?


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> This is the part that bugs me. I've got about 15 months left on an 18 month contract, however, if distants go away than I wish to go away as well. In my opinion, though, E* broke the law, albeit a very stupid law that I wholeheartedly disagree with. That aside, the punishment is already defined, and I don't like it. Any chance that if this goes through, those of us still under contract who have subscribed to DNS for some time will be left out of those contracts?


So is the only reason you got Dish was because they offered Distant Networks and no one else could or would?


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

1. We live in the sticks about 75 miles from Sacramento and can get no OTA or cable TV.
2. When I signed up with E* they were not offering Sacramento locals so I subscribed to the east coast newtorks.
3. When E was offering the Sacramento locals I subscribed to them and kept the distant locals. (Mostly to watch the easts 10PM shows at 7PM.)

I assume E* should have cancelled my distant locals when I was able to get Sacramento evem though Sacramento is 75 miles away. Is that correct?


----------



## SpencerKarter1985 (Jan 8, 2006)

Start a petition to reconsider the stupid ruling of taking distant networks off.

http://www.petitiononline.com


----------



## harlock328 (May 4, 2004)

SpencerKarter1985 said:


> Start a petition to reconsider the stupid ruling of taking distant networks off.
> 
> http://www.petitiononline.com


What would be the point? A petition can't change a court ruling.


----------



## SpencerKarter1985 (Jan 8, 2006)

harlock328 said:


> What would be the point? A petition can't change a court ruling.


I disagree with that post! That judge who ruled this should be a shame of him or herself. Come on, the SHIVA act should be changed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A petition could be used to show outrage but it isn't going to change the ruling. Perhaps a level of outrage will change the law but it isn't scheduled to be up for review for another three years. In the end, the petition is likely to be all noise and no change.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

SpencerKarter1985 said:


> I disagree with that post! That judge who ruled this should be a shame of him or herself. Come on, the SHIVA act should be changed.


Perhaps, but the Judge is not the one to do it.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> So is the only reason you got Dish was because they offered Distant Networks and no one else could or would?


Not the only reason, but one of several. I'm more concerned about CBSHD than anything else, to be honest. It's enough to be a deal-breaker.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

BoisePaul said:


> Not the only reason, but one of several. I'm more concerned about CBSHD than anything else, to be honest. It's enough to be a deal-breaker.


I would be concerned about CBS HD if they did not black out most of the NFL HD games. SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA do not appear to be written that way.


----------



## SpencerKarter1985 (Jan 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> A petition could be used to show outrage but it isn't going to change the ruling. Perhaps a level of outrage will change the law but it isn't scheduled to be up for review for another three years. In the end, the petition is likely to be all noise and no change.


I also disagree with your post as well, I'm sorry I have to say this. The court ruling stinks, thanks alot Judges Tjoflat, Hill, and Mills for ordering Echostar to shut off distant networks. 

I have my locals, so I won't worry about it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That's my point about the petition. It doesn't matter how much you or anyone else disagrees - the courts do not follow YOUR opinion (or mine).


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

There was no provision for Local into Local under SHVA, but there were stories of the Atlanta Distants being offered to Atlanta Grade A.


----------



## SpencerKarter1985 (Jan 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> That's my point about the petition. It doesn't matter how much you or anyone else disagrees - the courts do not follow YOUR opinion (or mine).


I think they shouldn't do that rulling in the first place. The SHIVA act must be reconsidered. I don't want to objected replys, I'm sorry I have to say it.

I believe what's right, I don't believe what's wrong. Come on this is the USA. How come Canada's BellExpressVu broadcasts American TV network feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX from Boston/Seattle why not distant networks in the states from NYC and LA? I hate the way the Judges ruled. What if their locally market don't have a ABC, or CBS, or NBC affiliate and they wanted to watch a show real bad? How would you feel?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Since the 240 range channels are still uplinked I'd say that they are still available to those who qualify under the law. People who don't have a particular network's affiliate in their market are LIKELY to qualify under the law and still be able to get their distant stations. (There would be an issue with people who live within the Grade B contour of a station from outside their own DMA - an issue that was intended to be solved with the Significantly Viewed additions to the law.)

I pity a person who has to watch a show "real bad". It's only TV.


----------



## SpencerKarter1985 (Jan 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> Since the 240 range channels are still uplinked I'd say that they are still available to those who qualify under the law. People who don't have a particular network's affiliate in their market are LIKELY to qualify under the law and still be able to get their distant stations. (There would be an issue with people who live within the Grade B contour of a station from outside their own DMA - an issue that was intended to be solved with the Significantly Viewed additions to the law.)
> 
> I pity a person who has to watch a show "real bad". It's only TV.


Come on! They needed a affiliate, and a station should served the area. You're just objecting my reply I think. I'm sorry I have say that.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Well, ignoring the rules seems to be the point of the whole thing. Don't seem to be anyone in a position to make change that is interested in doing so. Must be a minority around here.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SpencerKarter1985 said:


> Come on! They needed a affiliate, and a station should served the area.


The network needs to convince a station to serve the area. If there are no takers then APPROPRIATE use of the distants law would allow a network to enter that market as a "distant" feed.

I'm reminded of the "moving" threads and others where posters on this forum seem to think they SHOULD be able to get any station from any market that they want, regardless of the laws. Some have even suggested that E* is willing to support such thought (in breach of the law) by not enforcing addresses. What will truely be a shame is if ALL E* customers, including those who would qualify within the law, lose distant stations because of those who have qualified through fraud and the oversight / willing errors of Dish Network.


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

James Long said:


> The network needs to convince a station to serve the area. If there are no takers then APPROPRIATE use of the distants law would allow a network to enter that market as a "distant" feed.
> 
> I'm reminded of the "moving" threads and others where posters on this forum seem to think they SHOULD be able to get any station from any market that they want, regardless of the laws. Some have even suggested that E* is willing to support such thought (in breach of the law) by not enforcing addresses. What will truely be a shame is if ALL E* customers, including those who would qualify within the law, lose distant stations because of those who have qualified through fraud and the oversight / willing errors of Dish Network.


I agree with you. I applied for my waivers by law and were granted from all 4 local networks for the distant networks. I did NOT do the "move" and try to get mine by fraud. Plus my waivers match my service and billing addresses too.


----------



## jumpyg2 (Jan 24, 2006)

harlock328 said:


> What would be the point? A petition can't change a court ruling.


Exactly--we need legislation that will protect the consumer. Right now, legislators are worried about protecting old monopolies and limiting competition. The ancient players in the television business give vast sums of money (campaign contributions) to politicians to protect their turf. Unless consumers can outspend these guys, you can forget about getting legislation favorable to consumers. We are the last people politicians are worried about.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

I have sent the following to the NAB, FCC, my congressman, and my two US Senators

The National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta have overturned a FCC ruling concerning DISH Network and Distant Networks. I have thousands of dollars invested in Dish Network equipment. In punishing Dish Network the court is also punishing all their subscribers who cannot get Local channels. I went through years of not getting my local stations over the air. Finally Dish offers a way to get network broadcasts and I get all the required waivers from my local stations to see these national broadcasts and the court is now taking that away from me. Where was this court in fining/punishing my local stations for not providing me with a viewable signal. Now that HD is suppose to be the national standard , where was the court in punishing the local stations for not meeting the 2006 deadline. You all simply added 3 years. Why don't you simply give Dish and us 3 more years to get our local HD. 
I live 1/2 time in Texas and 1/2 time in NH . Why am I not allowed to get the NH locals while in Texas and the Texas locals while in NH. I still need to know what is going on while I am away. Dish has the technology to do that. It is you who do not allow it. I can get the local Lubbock newspaper in NH and the NH newspaper in Texas. I can even get radio stations from both areas via the internet. Why are you making separate rulings for television. Is it the NABs lobbying money at work.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

> I can even get radio stations from both areas via the internet.


Radio stations in many cases have to black out select syndicated radio shows that air nationally on the webstream. Also, unlike television stations, the majority of the programming on radio stations that do webstreams are produced in house and thus don't have to worry about regional rights being violated, so that's not really a valid analogy. Also, in nearly every market, there's at least one television station that puts streaming video of their news stories, which kind of defeats the purpose of you bringing up the radio analogy for the desire to see local news while you are away, since if you really need it, you can see the video online now.

On a semi-related note, there are some local television stations that do live webstreams as well, but like the radio stations, they are usually the ones that are independent, and produce most of their programming in house. And like the radio stations, they have to black out select programming as well.


> Why am I not allowed to get the NH locals while in Texas and the Texas locals while in NH. I still need to know what is going on while I am away. Dish has the technology to do that.


Actually, they can't provide people with whatever market they want due to spot beams, physically, they can only provide the stations they transmit for DNS service nationally. Do you even realize how much bandwith would be sacrificed if they took that advice and put every single local market on a conus beam so anyone can get what ever market they wanted? Spot beams exist so they can add multiple markets across the country on the same frequency. If every market was on conus, they would need an extra transponder for each spot beam that gets eliminated. Which means you lose about 12 or more national cable channels for every "spot" that's lost in this scenario.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

SpencerKarter1985 said:


> I think they shouldn't do that rulling in the first place. The SHIVA act must be reconsidered. I don't want to objected replys, I'm sorry I have to say it.
> 
> I believe what's right, I don't believe what's wrong. Come on this is the USA. How come Canada's BellExpressVu broadcasts American TV network feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX from Boston/Seattle why not distant networks in the states from NYC and LA? I hate the way the Judges ruled. What if their locally market don't have a ABC, or CBS, or NBC affiliate and they wanted to watch a show real bad? How would you feel?


The judge is just enforcing the current law---which is all that he is allowed to do. A request for changes to the law need to be addressed to Congress. A judge cannot respond to your petition or letters.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

odbrv said:


> I have sent the following to the NAB, FCC, my congressman, and my two US Senators
> 
> The National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta have overturned a FCC ruling concerning DISH Network and Distant Networks. I have thousands of dollars invested in Dish Network equipment. In punishing Dish Network the court is also punishing all their subscribers who cannot get Local channels. I went through years of not getting my local stations over the air. Finally Dish offers a way to get network broadcasts and I get all the required waivers from my local stations to see these national broadcasts and the court is now taking that away from me. Where was this court in fining/punishing my local stations for not providing me with a viewable signal. Now that HD is suppose to be the national standard , where was the court in punishing the local stations for not meeting the 2006 deadline. You all simply added 3 years. Why don't you simply give Dish and us 3 more years to get our local HD.
> I live 1/2 time in Texas and 1/2 time in NH . Why am I not allowed to get the NH locals while in Texas and the Texas locals while in NH. I still need to know what is going on while I am away. Dish has the technology to do that. It is you who do not allow it. I can get the local Lubbock newspaper in NH and the NH newspaper in Texas. I can even get radio stations from both areas via the internet. Why are you making separate rulings for television. Is it the NABs lobbying money at work.


It isi frustrating to all of us. The technology is there (although spotbeams limit us) but there is no legal authority to do what you want.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

BTW, to those who mentioned Bell Express Vu, Star Choice, and other Canadian providers being able to provide the US Networks, there's a huge difference. For one thing, it's a different country and they're not governed by the regulations of the FCC, they have a different body who handles this stuff with different rules. Also, they have no locally based ABC, Fox, CBS, and/or NBC stations so the local rules don't apply. But there are still some restrictions. Sometimes they have to black out programming if a Canadian station has the exclusive rights to the show.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> So is the only reason you got Dish was because they offered Distant Networks and no one else could or would?


It was for me.

E* offered Denver, D* didn't; E* had supers, D* didn't.

If/when DNS goes, the first thing I'll do is unsub locals. A minor protest that won't make much difference, I know, but still... if enough people did that, it would make for a rather Pyrrhic victory for the nets.

Then, after a month or so, if it looks like E* isn't going to be able to get the injunction lifted, I'll drop E* altogether.



James Long said:


> Some have even suggested that E* is willing to support such thought (in breach of the law) by not enforcing addresses. What will truely be a shame is if ALL E* customers, including those who would qualify within the law, lose distant stations because of those who have qualified through fraud and the oversight / willing errors of Dish Network.


Oh, please&#8230; there have been no legal challenges over the validity of addresses. What's at issue is the methodology E* used in qualifying service addresses between 1996 and 2002.

In fact, since most "movers" for DNS probably used relatively well-qualified addresses in the middle of nowhere, we'd probably be better off if E* had more "movers" rather than less. The court found a 20% threshold in the legislative history, and used that as a basis of its "pattern and practice" finding. Far too many of E*'s DNS service addresses back in 2002 just weren't good enough. There were other factors, too, of course, but if they'd had more white area "movers", they would definitely have been in a better position.



James Long said:


> People who don't have a particular network's affiliate in their market are LIKELY to qualify under the law and still be able to get their distant stations.


Not true.

Any OOM ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC channel added to a local package pursuant to the distant statutory license would have to be removed.



JohnH said:


> Hope the final ruling is specific enough to allow the WB Distants to continue.


WB was not a party to the suit, nor was there any WB distant net service until 2004 or 2005, so it cannot be part of the injunction. And even if it were, it's unlikely the injunction would carry over to CW.



JohnH said:


> I would be concerned about CBS HD if they did not black out most of the NFL HD games. SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA do not appear to be written that way.


I don't quite understand your point here.

CBS HD might be safe in the O&O areas if they have a sufficient contract, but CBS HD for DNS subs would most likely be covered by the injunction, unless the court could somehow find that CBS HD is a different network from CBS. (Very doubtful.)

Btw, the sports exclusivity in SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA is very limited. It applies only within 35 miles (or some similarly small radius) of the city of license of a station broadcasting a *local, live* event. Most of the sports blackouts on distants and supers (e.g. NFL games on distants and the Sox on SBK) are contractual rather than legal/regulatory. E*'s non-carriage of YES is probably the main reason why Yankees games have never been blacked out on NY distants and supers.



KyL416 said:


> Sometimes they have to black out programming if a Canadian station has the exclusive rights to the show.


Canadian blackouts are generally used only on U.S. cable nets, not U.S. broadcast stations. Broadcast stations are subject to simultaneous substitution, meaning that a local Canadian station's signal is substituted on the U.S. channel number when it is carrying the same program at the same time.


----------



## jc17981 (Jun 27, 2002)

The best stand any of us could make against the broadcast industry is to stop watching the involved parties -- in this case, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX. In that event, the networks themselves would be forced to make a change. However, speaking for myself -- I would forgo such a boycott. Though here in the Greenville, SC market, we are fortunate to have excellent local stations, I'm still not going to give up The Apprentice, American Idol, 24, CSI, etc.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jc17981 said:


> The best stand any of us could make against the broadcast industry is to stop watching the involved parties -- in this case, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX. In that event, the networks themselves would be forced to make a change.


It seems like a cross between a bad Monty Python skit and the classic, "Who's on First" by Abbott and Costello:

"I want another CBS station."
"CBS doesn't want you to have another CBS station."
"Screw CBS."
"Then how are you going to watch shows from CBS?"
"But, eh, ah, WAHHHHHHH!!!"


jc17981 said:


> However, speaking for myself -- I would forgo such a boycott. Though here in the Greenville, SC market, we are fortunate to have excellent local stations, I'm still not going to give up The Apprentice, American Idol, 24, CSI, etc.


And hence the reason for "market exclusivity".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

joblo said:


> If/when DNS goes, the first thing I'll do is unsub locals. A minor protest that won't make much difference, I know, but still... if enough people did that, it would make for a rather Pyrrhic victory for the nets.


Unsubscribing to locals would take far too long to filter up to the NAB. I assume that it is the NAB with which you have the beef. A campaign with your congressmen would be a much more beneficial approach and you wouldn't lose your locals in the process.

As a matter of interest, whom would you chose absent DNS from Dish Network?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

odbrv said:


> I have sent the following to the NAB, FCC, my congressman, and my two US Senators
> 
> The National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta have overturned a FCC ruling concerning DISH Network and Distant Networks. I have thousands of dollars invested in Dish Network equipment. In punishing Dish Network the court is also punishing all their subscribers who cannot get Local channels. I went through years of not getting my local stations over the air. Finally Dish offers a way to get network broadcasts and I get all the required waivers from my local stations to see these national broadcasts and the court is now taking that away from me. Where was this court in fining/punishing my local stations for not providing me with a viewable signal. Now that HD is suppose to be the national standard , where was the court in punishing the local stations for not meeting the 2006 deadline. You all simply added 3 years. Why don't you simply give Dish and us 3 more years to get our local HD.
> I live 1/2 time in Texas and 1/2 time in NH . Why am I not allowed to get the NH locals while in Texas and the Texas locals while in NH. I still need to know what is going on while I am away. Dish has the technology to do that. It is you who do not allow it. I can get the local Lubbock newspaper in NH and the NH newspaper in Texas. I can even get radio stations from both areas via the internet. Why are you making separate rulings for television. Is it the NABs lobbying money at work.


Unless you've got millions, the people who read your letter propably flushed it down a toilet. However I agree with you.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jc17981 said:


> The best stand any of us could make against the broadcast industry is to stop watching the involved parties -- in this case, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX. In that event, the networks themselves would be forced to make a change. However, speaking for myself -- I would forgo such a boycott. Though here in the Greenville, SC market, we are fortunate to have excellent local stations, I'm still not going to give up The Apprentice, American Idol, 24, CSI, etc.


I turned "all" disnets last month because I don't care for most of thier shows. I can watch Law & Order on TNT ETC. ETC.


----------



## Hoobastank (Mar 9, 2004)

Just to clarify for those of us who have committed "fraud" (surely a federal offense!) by "moving," .........where does this leave us thieves who do such a horrible thing as to pay for tv programming originating from a distant city? 

I know my service address is rock solid, so I anticipate absolutley no problem in whatever order a judge hands down to E.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

UNless of course they top Echostar from selling locals at all.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> UNless of course they top Echostar from selling locals at all.


Although my assertion is being challenged in another thread,
here is the text of the SHVIA law (in PDF), pages 9-10, listing the possible penalties:


> ''(2) PATTERN OF VIOLATIONS.-If a satellite carrier engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of secondarily transmitting to the public a primary transmission embodying a performance or display of a work made by a television broadcast station to subscribers who do not reside in that station's local market, and are not subject to statutory licensing under section 119 or a private licensing agreement, then in addition to the remedies under paragraph (1)-
> *''(A) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a substantially nationwide basis, the court-
> ''(i) shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of that television broadcast station (and if such television broadcast station is a network station, all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network); and
> ''(ii) may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was carried out;*


So, assuming for a moment that I am reading section (2)(A)(i) correctly, not only can the court block them from carrying the distant networks, but also "all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network", which means they could lose the right to carry all local ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC affiliates nationwide.

D* has been losing customers to E* because of this blatantly illegal misuse of the networks for years. As a D* employee I may be biased, but it is good to see E* finally get what is coming to them.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Kheldar said:


> , not only can the court block them from carrying the distant networks, but also "all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network", which means they could lose the right to carry all local ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC affiliates nationwide.
> 
> D* has been losing customers to E* because of this blatantly illegal misuse of the networks for years. As a D* employee I may be biased, but it is good to see E* finally get what is coming to them.


If the court were to do what you're suggesting, they'd be screwing over millions of Dish customers who would suddenly be without any network affilliates. I would be SHOCKED if that were to happen. It would also not please the NAB, would it?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

joblo said:


> I don't quite understand your point here.
> 
> CBS HD might be safe in the O&O areas if they have a sufficient contract, but CBS HD for DNS subs would most likely be covered by the injunction, unless the court could somehow find that CBS HD is a different network from CBS. (Very doubtful.)
> 
> Btw, the sports exclusivity in SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA is very limited. It applies only within 35 miles (or some similarly small radius) of the city of license of a station broadcasting a *local, live* event. Most of the sports blackouts on distants and supers (e.g. NFL games on distants and the Sox on SBK) are contractual rather than legal/regulatory. E*'s non-carriage of YES is probably the main reason why Yankees games have never been blacked out on NY distants and supers.


Part of my point was, I don't care about CBS HD, since most of the NFL HD games are blacked out regardless of the statutory requirements to blackout only *local/live games*. BTW: D* does not do this.

In my opinion, blacking out any other content than required by law would violate the *no alteration of content* specification of the law.

Your comment about YES Network is not supported by D* carriage. They do not blackout Yankees games on Distant Networks.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoobastank said:


> Just to clarify for those of us who have committed "fraud" (surely a federal offense!) by "moving," .........where does this leave us thieves who do such a horrible thing as to pay for tv programming originating from a distant city?


Among other things, in this particular instance, you would indirectly be stealing network television capability from those who are actually entitled to it and have no other option.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

billpa said:


> If the court were to do what you're suggesting, they'd be screwing over millions of Dish customers who would suddenly be without any network affilliates. I would be SHOCKED if that were to happen. It would also not please the NAB, would it?


I checked with E* and if people in my area lose distants, they will be able to get Lubbock locals. The catch is they are on the 148 satellite. To get them they will need to purchase another dish($99), possibly another switch (DP44 - $199), and pay an installation charge($99). Total cost could be $400. So who did the court penalize again? It seems Dish has been given a major revenue boost and we got screwed by the court . So maybe E* isn't dumb afterall. My solution will be to forget networks. I think I will now start writing all the network sponsors and tell them they might be losing viewers and they should renegotiate their ad costs. That is just what the big networks need is more lost viewers. Have they been reading how many viewers they have already lost to non network offerings? Wow is the NAB a brilliant bunch. If I were their boss, I would be saying " You're fired " to a bunch of people.


----------



## Hoobastank (Mar 9, 2004)

harsh said:


> Among other things, in this particular instance, you would indirectly be stealing network television capability from those who are actually entitled to it and have no other option.


I believe you have an askewed definition of the word stealing. As I've stated before, everything is Kosher on my end. I've met all the legal obligations to be able to receive the channels I'm viewing. Now, unless federal agents have ran out of things to do (like hunt for murderers and the topic du jour illegal aliens)and they would like to investigate a suspected violation of an antiquated law that is hurting so many Americans, then I don't foresee any problems.

As far as turning off locals in every market for every person, that is ridiculous. To even discuss it any further as if it were fact is pure paranoia.:bad_nono:


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Actually, according to the article by Multichannel News, that was one of the punishments they were seeking, but the judge decided against it:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6337495.html?display=Breaking+News


> The outcome could have been far worse for EchoStar. At times in the litigation, broadcasters asked the courts to punish the DBS operator by banning it from providing even local TV signals to subscribers in dozens of local markets. The court's ruling did not address a local-signal ban as a remedy.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Hoobastank said:


> As I've stated before, everything is Kosher on my end. I've met all the legal obligations to be able to receive the channels I'm viewing. Now, unless federal agents have ran out of things to do (like hunt for murderers and the topic du jour illegal aliens)and they would like to investigate a suspected violation of an antiquated law that is hurting so many Americans, then I don't foresee any problems.


Wierd statement. You say everything is Kosher. Then you hint that if the Feds were to come to your listed service address, they might find you don't actually live there or have your service there.

"antiquated law" is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Fact is, anything delivered via satellite under the law is something relatively new and a bonus to those which qualify, unless the provider delivers the channels to "served" households so many times the *privilege* is removed.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Hoobastank said:


> I believe you have an askewed definition of the word stealing. As I've stated before, everything is Kosher on my end. I've met all the legal obligations to be able to receive the channels I'm viewing. Now, unless federal agents have ran out of things to do (like hunt for murderers and the topic du jour illegal aliens)and they would like to investigate a suspected violation of an antiquated law that is hurting so many Americans, then I don't foresee any problems.
> 
> As far as turning off locals in every market for every person, that is ridiculous. To even discuss it any further as if it were fact is pure paranoia.:bad_nono:


Yeah we can't siscuss it. That would be sillyd


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Yeah we can't siscuss it. That would be silly.


Would _siscuss_ing it be sillier than _discuss_ing it?


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

JohnH said:


> Part of my point was, I don't care about CBS HD, since most of the NFL HD games are blacked out regardless of the statutory requirements to blackout only *local/live games*. BTW: D* does not do this.
> 
> In my opinion, blacking out any other content than required by law would violate the *no alteration of content* specification of the law.
> 
> Your comment about YES Network is not supported by D* carriage. They do not blackout Yankees games on Distant Networks.


CBSHD NFL games are blacked out for you? How odd... I've never had any blackout issues with NFL games on CBSHD, and your situation shouldn't be that much different from mine, unless the Phila DMA is a CBS O&O market and there's a special blackout provision is in the "agreement" that CBS has with E*. The Wilkes-Barre DMA CBS (WYOU) is not CBS O&O (but don't get me started on the actual owners - what a scam that is) so I had to go the waiver route.

Oh well, back to topic...


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

It is O&O. I probably have twice as many chances to get blacked out since I have East and West.


----------



## bonipie (Feb 9, 2006)

A little preface-we do qualify for distant networks. However, there has been reference to "white area", which I assume is a mapping of the areas that do not have local coverage and that people in these areas qualify for distant networks. Does such a map exist? I would like to see it just as a curiosity as to the actual coverage of network tv-ota. Does anyone have a link or a bit more of an explaination? Thanks, Boni


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

bonipie said:


> A little preface-we do qualify for distant networks. However, there has been reference to "white area", which I assume is a mapping of the areas that do not have local coverage and that people in these areas qualify for distant networks. Does such a map exist? I would like to see it just as a curiosity as to the actual coverage of network tv-ota. Does anyone have a link or a bit more of an explaination? Thanks, Boni


I'd like to see that too.

Thanks, Shorty


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If drawn, there would be a "white area" map for each network. Perhaps one where a customer would be considered in a "white area" for all networks is the one that would be most appreciated by readers. 

If a map exists I have not seen it. It would be easier to calculate each location on a case by case basis that pre-create a map.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> If drawn, there would be a "white area" map for each network. Perhaps one where a customer would be considered in a "white area" for all networks is the one that would be most appreciated by readers.
> 
> If a map exists I have not seen it. It would be easier to calculate each location on a case by case basis that pre-create a map.


Nevada City- areas east and north of of highway 49 and Highway 20 up to the crest of the Sierra Nevada get no TV even though it is as close as 50 miles as the crows filies from Sacramento.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoobastank said:


> I believe you have an askewed definition of the word stealing. As I've stated before, everything is Kosher on my end. I've met all the legal obligations to be able to receive the channels I'm viewing.


That you have fortified your deception to a sufficient extent to withstand scrutiny doesn't make it right. If you had channeled that effort into getting the policy changed, we'd all be closer to the goal. As it is, your success has poured salt in the wounds of a very powerful lobby.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Hoobastank said:


> I believe you have an askewed definition of the word stealing. As I've stated before, everything is Kosher on my end. I've met all the legal obligations to be able to receive the channels I'm viewing. Now, unless federal agents have ran out of things to do (like hunt for murderers and the topic du jour illegal aliens)and they would like to investigate a suspected violation of an antiquated law that is hurting so many Americans, then I don't foresee any problems.
> 
> As far as turning off locals in every market for every person, that is ridiculous. To even discuss it any further as if it were fact is pure paranoia.:bad_nono:


*Two issues with that statement:*

1) You claim our definition of 'stealing' is skewed:

Definition of _stealing_, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:


> 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
> ...
> _transitive senses_
> 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <_stole_ a car>
> ...


Because you are taking "the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice", and taking "without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully", and you are taking "surreptitiously or without permission", you _are_ stealing that programming by the very definition of the word.

2) Changing the subject
This is a common, and interesting debate tactic, called a red herring:


> This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)
> 
> The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time and distract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar.


Saying that the feds should have something better to do than chase down satellite pirates changes the debate to the point of silliness. The red herring is the sign of a weak argument, trying to get your debate opponents' off-topic.

So...
You are wrong on the 'stealing' question, and then try to change the topic.
This is the sign of two things: a weak argument and a guilty conscience.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

harsh said:


> That you have fortified your deception to a sufficient extent to withstand scrutiny doesn't make it right. ...


So far, so good.



harsh said:


> ... If you had channeled that effort into getting the policy changed, we'd all be closer to the goal. ...


OK, now you lost me.

If the "goal" is to have access to whatever channels we want, I doubt that any amount of effort will change the rules any time soon. And, by the way, those who have already done what's necessary to watch channels they wouldn't otherwise be authorized are now completely free to pursue that goal...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> If the "goal" is to have access to whatever channels we want, I doubt that any amount of effort will change the rules any time soon. And, by the way, those who have already done what's necessary to watch channels they wouldn't otherwise be authorized are now completely free to pursue that goal...


I can say with relative certainty that if nobody speaks up, nothing will happen. The NAB is tirelessly pursuing their agenda to insure that things only get better for them.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

harsh said:


> I can say with relative certainty that if nobody speaks up, nothing will happen. ...


I completely agree. When do you expect the rule to change? I doubt it will.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> When do you expect the rule to change?


Certainly not until there is a strong public effort to change the rule. I would prefer to think that we can make change. If we sit on our hands with the idea that it cannot happen, it will not happen.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

harsh said:


> Certainly not until there is a strong public effort to change the rule. I would prefer to think that we can make change. If we sit on our hands with the idea that it cannot happen, it will not happen.


Are you saying that a person or company who creates a TV program should not be able to sell or distribute it as he/she/it sees fit?


----------



## mraub (Mar 5, 2004)

There's one thing you can be almost certain about: It ain't over yet. Dish has the right to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts. It generally takes 9-12 months for the Supreme Court to decide whether it will take a particular case. In most instances the ruling of the lower court is stayed, pending a decision by the Supreme Court whether or not to take the case.

Also, there a going to be a bunch of close races for the House and Senate coming up and none of the incumbants wants to make any voter mad. I expert Dish has its people working on key members of Congress to change the "shall" to a "may" in the injunction remedy statute the court relies on.

MIKE


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

Am I understanding this right? It sounds like people who live in a DMA with locals available on Dish have already had their distants turned off regardless of waiver status. However, people who live in unserved areas and are eligible to receive distants based on SHVIA haven't been touched yet. Is this going to remain the case in that waivers are no longer important? It seems that this would prompt those who had legitimate waivers to "move" to a different part of the country where they could still receive distants. 

Does anyone know if Dish is going to start verifying service addresses to insure no one is falsely "moving" anymore? There are still a lot of question marks surrounding this issue.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

2 question marks.

Will DiSH Network appeal to the Supreme Court?(May not appear there is any basis to do so, especially if they do not really expect to win.)

When will the Lower Court actually issue the Injunction(s)?

If the Injunctions are issued, *OFF* they go, no matter where you live or "move".

"legitimate waivers" must be something new. Have not heard about the waivers which are not legitimate.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

I'm a satisfied DISH customer and have supported Charlie's attempts to change the rules so that he can deliver whatever channels I want. However, he *has* played fast and loose with the rules for years.

The potential penalties to DISH are severe. Not being able to deliver stations from distant DMA's has always been a possibility, but I believe Charlie din't think it would ever get this far. He has angered some very powerful interests and now push has come to shove.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

If it was Charlie and E* that the politicians had to deal with, he would lose.

Our only chance is that they are swayed by the fact that E* has given consumers something they desperately wanted for years, legal or not, and now there are millions of ticked off voters who don't care about the NAB's needs and just want their shows when they want them.

Enough of them have to get mobilized to write their reps to affect any change. I've emailed mine.... Who else has done the same to theirs? Whining here accomplishes NOTHING. Write now or look in the mirror later for someone to blame when Charlie runs out of legal tricks to stall things any further.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

There is an article in the current multichannel news that addresses---albeit briefly----the notion of cutting off ALL locals instead of distant netrs. according to the article the NAB pushed for this remedy but it was not addresses in the current ruling. In other words it won't happen at this time but it is not so far fetched to bring it up.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6338769.html


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

mraub said:


> There's one thing you can be almost certain about: It ain't over yet. Dish has the right to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts. It generally takes 9-12 months for the Supreme Court to decide whether it will take a particular case. In most instances the ruling of the lower court is stayed, pending a decision by the Supreme Court whether or not to take the case.


Then you may find this of interest. From SkyReport.com, dated 20 September, 2001:


> In the appeal, EchoStar also challenged the constitutionality of restrictions contained in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, but those challenges were rejected. EchoStar said it's considering whether to appeal that portion of the case to the Supreme Court.
> 
> In its constitutional challenge, EchoStar argued that distant network programming is speech, and that SHVIA restricts speech by prohibiting the delivery of programming that subscribers are legally entitled to receive. The court rejected the argument.


Then the Supreme Court elected not to hear the case, as told by SkyReport.com, from 21 May, 2002:


> In its decision, the court refused to hear EchoStar's appeal of a lower court ruling concerning distant network signal rules, which govern how local TV stations can and cannot be delivered outside of their local market. Last Fall, a federal appeals court upheld the federal law that restricts the delivery of local stations outside of their home market.


By the way, *this imminent cut-off of distant networks is the same case as this one.*

Unless the punishment of a permanent injunction can be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", the Supreme's probably will not hear this case.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> Are you saying that a person or company who creates a TV program should not be able to sell or distribute it as he/she/it sees fit?


As a producer, you (or your agent) negotiate terms with distributors. The more conditions you place, the less appealing to the distributors your program will be. It is unlikely that the distributors will sign and pay for a contract that requires breaking the law.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JohnH said:


> "legitimate waivers" must be something new. Have not heard about the waivers which are not legitimate.


Illegitimate waivers might be those that have "expired". This may happen when a station goes from LP to HP or if the broadcast point is changed.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

harsh said:


> Illegitimate waivers might be those that have "expired". This may happen when a station goes from LP to HP or if the broadcast point is changed.


Or for that matter when a station changes network affiliations.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> I suggest that those of us who enjoy distant network programming petition AGAINST the renewal of broadcast licenses for the stations involved in this suit.


Don't kid yourself. The FCC will only consider valid complaints where the license holder did something that violated rules or laws. There are only groups who MIGHT listen to you, advertisers and congressmen. Also, maybe the networks could be even more aggressive in offering direct network programming bypassing the local affiliates.



> Start a petition to reconsider the stupid ruling of taking distant networks off.


The problem here is we are all very small minorities. The average person out there could care less. Just talk to your friends about it and see how crazy they thing you are (I've been there).



> I have sent the following to the NAB, FCC, my congressman, and my two US Senators
> 
> The National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta have overturned a FCC ruling concerning DISH Network and Distant Networks. I have thousands of dollars invested in Dish Network equipment. In punishing Dish Network the court is also punishing all their subscribers who&#8230;


You should have also sent it as an open letter to your newspaper and every college and entertainment rag within 50 miles.


----------



## mraub (Mar 5, 2004)

Just because the Supreme Court refused to hear the first appeal, doesn't affect Dish's right to appeal this decision. Also, since the Supreme Court's decision not to take a case does not mean it agrees with the lower courts, Dish can try to raise their 1st Amendment arguments again if the Supreme Court decides to review the case.



Greg Bimson said:


> Then you may find this of interest. From SkyReport.com, dated 20 September, 2001:Then the Supreme Court elected not to hear the case, as told by SkyReport.com, from 21 May, 2002:By the way, *this imminent cut-off of distant networks is the same case as this one.*
> 
> Unless the punishment of a permanent injunction can be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", the Supreme's probably will not hear this case.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

Just received a formal letter from US Senator Cornyn of Texas in response to my e-mail published above in this thread. He has contacted the appropriate officials at the FCC to review why Texans will be losing network broadcasts. He says he will let me know when he gets a reply. 
So please start the writing campaign to your Congressman and Senators. The FCC might not listen directly to us. However, if they get enough complaints from the US Congress, who fund them. They might start a review. One quick solution would be to allow Distant Network HD. It might help push their( Congress and the FCC) desire to have HD be the tv standard.


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

Geronimo said:


> There is an article in the current multichannel news that addresses---albeit briefly----the notion of cutting off ALL locals instead of distant netrs. according to the article the NAB pushed for this remedy but it was not addresses in the current ruling. In other words it won't happen at this time but it is not so far fetched to bring it up.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6338769.html


I would think that the NAB would not want to eliminate local-into-local service altogether - after all, this would eliminate local eyeballs from the local commercials that pay for everything.

Unless the NAB is so ticked at E* that they would just as soon put E* out of business altogether - which would not be that far-fetched if local-into-local was elimiated.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

jrbdmb said:


> I would think that the NAB would not want to eliminate local-into-local service altogether - after all, this would eliminate local eyeballs from the local commercials that pay for everything.
> 
> Unless the NAB is so ticked at E* that they would just as soon put E* out of business altogether - which would not be that far-fetched if local-into-local was elimiated.


If that were to happen, there would be an abundance of bandwidth for the expansion of HD programming. Lots of high bit rate HD satellite channels sounds very good to me. Of course, the odds of E* losing LiL's are tiny.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

jrbdmb said:


> I would think that the NAB would not want to eliminate local-into-local service altogether - after all, this would eliminate local eyeballs from the local commercials that pay for everything.
> 
> Unless the NAB is so ticked at E* that they would just as soon put E* out of business altogether - which would not be that far-fetched if local-into-local was elimiated.


The fact is that they DID request that. It did not happen however so the discussion is moot---except for the original point which is this remedy is available to the courts.

As for there being more room for HD if E* cannot carry any local channels well I guess a pig does look a lot prettier when you put a new dress and the right hat on her.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Just received a formal letter from US Senator Cornyn of Texas in response to my e-mail published above in this thread. He has contacted the appropriate officials at the FCC to review why Texans will be losing network broadcasts. He says he will let me know when he gets a reply.


This is the first time in my life where I have ever heard of a congressman or senator seeming to be on the side of consumers on this.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

mraub said:


> Just because the Supreme Court refused to hear the first appeal, doesn't affect Dish's right to appeal this decision. Also, since the Supreme Court's decision not to take a case does not mean it agrees with the lower courts, Dish can try to raise their 1st Amendment arguments again if the Supreme Court decides to review the case.


I know that Dish Network can still appeal to the Supreme Court. However, it is more than likely SCOTUS will take a pass on this, since the issue has been address in the past five years. As I said, one of the few arguments that may stand a legal test is that the permanent injunction may be considered "cruel and unusual punishment".

Otherwise, it is much more likely that the Supreme Court will not address this issue. After all, the SHVA laws and its' successors all provide a choice: either use the license exempting copyrights based on a narrow qualification, or go and contract out and obtain copyright clearances from each content provider or producer.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky, there really isn't anything to imply that the Senator is on the side of consumers. Just because we know all about this possible court action doesn't mean Congress Critters do. For all we know, the Senator from Texas (or someone from his staff) thinks all local and national network programming is no longer going to be available on satellite.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

The key is to get the media to start talking about it. You will get no response from TV media as they are interested in seeing our pleas be ignored, but you might be able to get the newspapers to agree with you. They don't see newspapers from 1000 miles away as a threat as the vast majority of people are supposedly interested in local news instead of broadcasts taking place elsewhere. 

I still fail to see how government can basically force a monopoly down the taxpayers throats. Whenever another industry tries a stunt like this, they are smacked down hard. Slavery and discrimination were once institutionally supported law as well. It's time the NAB lost their monopoly power and to give consumers a choice of where they get their network programming. We are maybe 2-3% of the satellite TV population that want this capability (which means we are less than 1% of the total audience TOPS. The whole affiliate model will NOT crash to the ground over this.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> News Junky, there really isn't anything to imply that the Senator is on the side of consumers. Just because we know all about this possible court action doesn't mean Congress Critters do. For all we know, the Senator from Texas (or someone from his staff) thinks all local and national network programming is no longer going to be available on satellite.


Which ironically is our best chance to kill this thing. According to the ruling's language ALL distant network channels should be turned off. This will REALLY tick off Rural America. If they just said to turn off illegal subscribers it would cause less of an uproar.

Remember, the vast majority of these distant network subscribers don't know about this. E* needs to send out emails and letters to inform subscribers about what is at stake. The time to derail this is before something drastic is done.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

BobMurdoch said:


> ... Remember, the vast majority of these distant network subscribers don't know about this. E* needs to send out emails and letters to inform subscribers about what is at stake. The time to derail this is before something drastic is done.


With potentially having to turn off programming, one would think that E* would be at least alerting subscribers to the possibility. I haven't heard of anyone receiving a notice and nothing on the E* web site even hints about it.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

I'm sure it will be coming soon. The ruling was just announced last week. I'm sure they will announce something at Team Summit with a mailing to go out shortly thereafter, unless they think it may take months or years for this to be implemented in which case they may to leave it off the radar screen for those not wired in like us....


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> Which ironically is our best chance to kill this thing. According to the ruling's language ALL distant network channels should be turned off. This will REALLY tick off Rural America. If they just said to turn off illegal subscribers it would cause less of an uproar.


The problem with that is that the courts would think that E* can no longer be trusted to determine who _is_ receiving the networks illegally. Unless the court forces E* to run signal strength tests for each individual customer (expensive), or E* can provider signed-and-dated waiver papers for everyone (easily forged), the court would have no other way to determine who is legal and who is not.

So E* shot themselves in the foot and screwed it up for every one of their customers.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobMurdoch said:


> I still fail to see how government can basically force a monopoly down the taxpayers throats.


What monopoly?

With an outdoor antenna, you can pick up dozens of local channels. That is not a monopoly.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> What monopoly?
> 
> With an outdoor antenna, you can pick up dozens of local channels. That is not a monopoly.


Maybe in Maryland, but in a good portion of the country people are lucky to get their own local market and have a snowball's chance in hell of getting channels from another market with even a rooftop antenna.
The monopoly that _BobMurdoch_ was referring to (and, _BobMurdoch_, correct me if I misunderstand) is that each local station has a monopoly on their network-affiliated programming. Since in most of the country you can only pick up 1 ABC, 1 NBC, etc, that station has an effective monopoly on their programming.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> What monopoly?
> 
> With an outdoor antenna, you can pick up dozens of local channels. That is not a monopoly.


If E* went out of business the only TV we could get would be Dish who would have a total monopoly


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

hankmack said:


> If E* went out of business the only TV we could get would be Dish who would have a total monopoly


Do you mean Direct (D*) TV?


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

boylehome said:


> Do you mean Direct (D*) TV?


You are right, DirectTV


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Kheldar writes:


> The monopoly that BobMurdoch was referring to (and, BobMurdoch, correct me if I misunderstand) is that each local station has a monopoly on their network-affiliated programming.


No, each local station has an exclusive on their network-affiliated programming, not a monopoly. There is a large difference.


> Maybe in Maryland, but in a good portion of the country people are lucky to get their own local market and have a snowball's chance in hell of getting channels from another market with even a rooftop antenna.


From what I understand, Brielle, NJ, where Bob lives, can get some decent stations from a few different points by using an outdoor antenna.

And, no, the TiVo lawsuit nor this imminent cut-off of distant networks will put a large dent in Echostar. Keeping in mind that the TiVo lawsuit, if trebled, will still end up at just over $200 million. And supposedly there are only 630K subscribers with distant locals. Dish Network paid $600 million to DirecTV a few years ago in order to dissolve the planned merger, and look where they are. Any action in these areas will only be a scratch. Only a speed bump.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> And, no, the TiVo lawsuit nor this imminent cut-off of distant networks will put a large dent in Echostar. Keeping in mind that the TiVo lawsuit, if trebled, will still end up at just over $200 million. And supposedly there are only 630K subscribers with distant locals. Dish Network paid $600 million to DirecTV a few years ago in order to dissolve the planned merger, and look where they are. Any action in these areas will only be a scratch. Only a speed bump.


I misunderstood the percentages listed on page 39 of the ruling:


> The best case scenario, which takes as valid EchoStar's claims of waivers
> and grandfathered status (the same ones for which district court found EchoStar
> failed to carry its burden of establishing), indicates that, on a nationwide basis,
> EchoStar is presumptively providing illegal service to 26.5% of its subscribers
> ...


I thought the percentages were saying that 26.5% _of E*'s total customer base_ was getting ABC (for example) illegally, but a careful reading of "EchoStar is presumptively providing illegal service to 26.5% of its subscribers receiving ABC distant network programming" shows that the percentage is saying that 26.5% _of ABC distant network subscribers_ are getting the services illegally. 
That is a big difference in numbers.

But, as the court continues on pages 39 and 40:


> While we believe this may very well be sufficiently objectionable, we cull some additional inflammatory conclusions from the district court's opinion: "*The Court finds that EchoStar has failed to meet its burden of proving that its subscribers are 'unserved households.*'" Id. at 1248; "*EchoStar has failed to present any evidence . . . that any of its subscribers are unserved as defined under SHVA.*" Id. at 1253; "*The Court's [findings] support the conclusion that hundreds of thousands of EchoStar's distant network programming subscribers are not unserved households.*" Id. at 1249; "*Plaintiff's evidence indicates that a significant percentage of EchoStar's distant network programming subscribers receive a signal of Grade B intensity or better.*" Id. at 1253; "*Echostar has not met its burden in showing that any of its distant signal subscribers meet the grandfathering requirements.*" Id. at 1250; "*EchoStar has also failed to prove that any of its subscribers are eligible because they have obtained waivers from the relevant network stations.*" Id. at 1252. *If these findings do not describe a "pattern or practice" of violations, we do not know what does.*
> ...
> *As if the magnitude of its ineligible subscriber base were insufficiently disconcerting, we have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act.*


So, according to the appeals court, E* did not provide sufficient evidence that *any* of their distant network subscribers were eligible, had valid waivers, or were properly grandfathered. Using your number of 630,000 customers, this means that approximately 5% of their entire customer base (based on 12.5 million) is recieving those networks illegally. 
No matter which way you cut it, a lot of those people are going to be very upset about the potential loss of those channels.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> News Junky, there really isn't anything to imply that the Senator is on the side of consumers. Just because we know all about this possible court action doesn't mean Congress Critters do. For all we know, the Senator from Texas (or someone from his staff) thinks all local and national network programming is no longer going to be available on satellite.


True. My experience was no reply at all from my House Rep. and one Senator and the other Senator basically told me to keep dreaming with no explaination on the laws. I've actually learned more about this from one than anyone. So compared to what I got from my elected officials I got a little excited.

Do I resent local TV? Yes. I think there is so much opportunity to put smaller towns on the map and let those living in smaller communities get a peek inside the culture and communities of larger cities. Everybody would benefit ecomonically and otherwise. I know there are legal issues that would need to be addressed but nothing impossible. But its their baby, not mine. Network TV is the local affiliate sacred cow. I'm starting to accept that. What helps is knowing a technological avalance is coming. The Networks are coming up with ways to get their content to views apart from the affiliates and Slingbox-TiVo to Go, etc. are opening up new possibilities.

Thanks for everything and cool seeing you again.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> There is a large difference.From what I understand, Brielle, NJ, where Bob lives, can get some decent stations from a few different points by using an outdoor antenna.


When I used to have an analog TV antenna on my roof in the dark ages about 20 years ago, I could receive NO Philly channels (60-70 miles away) and the New York channels were really snowy (every show looked like Poltergeist was playing).

Yes, an exclusive is a monopoly to me. DirecTV has an exclusive with Sunday Ticket. It's also a monopoly. If you want it, you have to go to D*.

If one auto dealership company was allowed to control all of the Mercedes Benz sales in a three state area (and a law would prevent you from buying one from California and shipping it to NJ) it would be called a monopoly and the feds would be all over you.

There has been this disconnect as people refuse to call a monopoly a monopoly in this situation. It goes against everything that the feds supposedly abhor. If E* couldn't buy D* because they would be a monopoly (even though alternatives from the Baby Bells and Cable existed), then how is this any different?

Greg, I respect your opinion but I fear that neither one of us is going to change the other person's mind. For now, the NAB with bags of cash have convinced Congress to agree with you. It doesn't make it right or consistent with antitrust laws. Basically, they are trying to restrict my ability to obtain something that I want to pay for (which they are giving away FREE to anyone with an antenna in those areas). I refuse to acknowledge their "ownership" of airwaves that they don't own, nor their unmitigated ability to force me to watch their ads (which I'm not watching anyway thanks to my PVR). There are plenty of lemmings who are happy to watch as many ads from your local station as you can cram into their eyeballs. I'm not one of them.

Also, there was supposedly a provision setup in the recent leglislation that was supposed to allow satellite to better match cable with the significantly viewed provisions. In my town, cable viewers can watch both New York and Philly channels. The recent list of areas approved to look at two markets does not include my area, so the list is not working here (and I did write the FCC to complain when the list was released, but nothing happened, even though my letter got mentioned in SkyReport of as one of a handful challenging the list)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobMurdoch said:


> There has been this disconnect as people refuse to call a monopoly a monopoly in this situation. It goes against everything that the feds supposedly abhor. If E* couldn't buy D* because they would be a monopoly (even though alternatives from the Baby Bells and Cable existed), then how is this any different?


And Pandora's Box was just opened, and every argument can be addressed by one example...

That darned J.K. Rowling has a monopoly on Harry Potter. How dare she? Who does she think she is?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobMurdoch said:


> Also, there was supposedly a provision setup in the recent leglislation that was supposed to allow satellite to better match cable with the significantly viewed provisions. In my town, cable viewers can watch both New York and Philly channels. The recent list of areas approved to look at two markets does not include my area, so the list is not working here (and I did write the FCC to complain when the list was released, but nothing happened, even though my letter got mentioned in SkyReport of as one of a handful challenging the list)


Good for you. We need more people to challenge the "rules", instead of workarounds.

Of course, your cable company's headend is somewhere that allows them to receive both Philly and New York channels. You need to challenge. The FCC is suppoosed to review the significantly-viewed list, and amend any changes to it as it relates to satellite.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

This is a rant. I need to vent. The Gov. is too involved with this business. 

Since they think they are making things good for the small, local TV stations, how about the government going a step further and forcing the restoration of all the small mom and pop stores that the big stores have forced out of business? It should be an open market for network stations so we can get the stations we want. Gosh since this is the USA, I guess the next step will be to prevent the reception of foreign TV stations, lest we miss some USA ad, event, or local matter. Leave the satellite companies alone. Leaving things alone will allow the local markets to develop concepts and trends that will foster customer interest thereby making them prosperous or otherwise out-of-business.

I guess the next step will be for the NAB, MPAA, FCC, etc. to force commercials and other interruptions on the satellite radio channels that we pay to subscribe, so to make us listen to local free FM stations (or better, AM stations!) and all of their worthless ads. 

As a subscriber shouldn't I get to watch what I am paying for?


----------



## LASooner (Jan 24, 2005)

boylehome said:


> I guess the next step will be for the NAB, MPAA, FCC, etc. to force commercials and other interruptions on the satellite radio channels that we pay to subscribe, so to make us listen to local free FM stations (or better, AM stations!) and all of their worthless ads.


They're already lobbying for FCC control of Satellite radio.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

boylehome said:


> This is a rant. I need to vent. The Gov. is too involved with this business.
> 
> Since they think they are making things good for the small, local TV stations,


Here we go again...

If the government didn't pass the SHVA, SHVIA or SHVERA, guess what local stations we'd have on satellite.

*NONE.* And that is why the government is involved.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Here we go again...
> 
> If the government didn't pass the SHVA, SHVIA or SHVERA, guess what local stations we'd have on satellite.
> 
> *NONE.* And that is why the government is involved.


Check the history. SHVERA/SHVRA is not our friend. Have you read them? SHVERA/SHVRA took and is continuing to take away our distant networks. It is making it more difficult for those in poor reception zones to benefit with network reception. It was great to get the networks East and West Coast feeds when and where we wanted. Locals are good but bandwidth is compromised. The current quality of the the SD LiL's are overly compressed. SHVERA/SHVRA is an infringement to our freedoms and has made things more difficult for the satellite providers and customers with specific needs respective to some DMA locations. So, now we have judges acting on this subjective law and if justice fails or in this case prevails, a new type of IRON CURTAIN will hang. SHVERA/SHVRA could have been a great thing if the politicians would not have convoluted it with personal gain issues associated with broadcasters and cable companies personal interests.

In an about face, I must say that I'm happy that the Gov. is forcing the TV broadcasters to convert to digital and have set a solid cut off date for analog. Respective to digital and HD, did E* have to provide local HD content as it has commenced? I think not, but they are striving to please us. The same would have happened with out SHVERA/SHVRA. So in closing, here we go again....


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

"*our* distant networks". Items which would not be available at all without the SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

boylehome said:


> Check the history. SHVERA/SHVRA is not our friend. Have you read them? SHVERA/SHVRA took and is continuing to take away our distant networks.


I know the history just fine.

Come 31 December, 1999, if no law was passed, distant networks would have been terminated to everyone. That is the reason why the SHVIA was passed a month earlier.

Come 31 December, 2004, if no law was passed, distant networks would have been terminated to everyone. That is the reason why the SHVERA was passed a month earlier.

If you want your Congress critters to leave everything alone, all distant networks will be terminated by 31 December, 2009.


boylehome said:


> Respective to digital and HD, did E* have to provide local HD content as it has commenced? I think not, but they are striving to please us. The same would have happened with out SHVERA/SHVRA.


No. Without the SHVIA in 1999, satellite carriers would not be able to retransmit any local channels, including those in HD.

The real reasoning is that the satellite companies need to start providing popular locals in HD, or they will be way behind the curve as it relates to the cable companies.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Of course E* was transmitting some of them anyway.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> If you want your Congress critters to leave everything alone, all distant networks will be terminated by 31 December, 2009.


And watch the networks offer direct programming in true digital quality instead of off the air fuzzy wuzzy. Then the locals would have to pay D* and E* just to retransmitt their local news.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

News Junky said:


> And watch the networks offer direct programming in true digital quality instead of off the air fuzzy wuzzy. Then the locals would have to pay D* and E* just to retransmitt their local news.


Unless congress changes the laws, local into local will continue beyond 2009. It is also ILLEGAL for stations to pay D* or E* for carriage - although stations can choose "Consent to Carry" and charge the satellite providers and stations may pay the cost of delivering a signal to the satellite provider's point of presence.

What will expire, unless congress acts by 2009, is receiving distant networks. There is no threat to LIL as long as congress chooses not to do anything.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

I agree, this is one positive aspect of the act.



JohnH said:


> "*our* distant networks". Items which would not be available at all without the SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA.


Your statement is accurate. What I was shooting for is that without SHVIA, SHVERA, or SHVA and whatever else may spew out of the act because of the impeding actions that made cause for creating the act in the fist place, the satellite companies would still stay ahead of the curve and more likely than not.

Regarding SHVIA I was disappointed by the actions of congress and the senate in compromising the wants of their constituents over the wants of the of NAB. The real impact and effect of local commercials on consumers is questionable and is theory. Without the LiL it would be difficult for little communities to get their advertisement to their customers living in the white zones.



Greg Bimson said:


> The real reasoning is that the satellite companies need to start providing popular locals in HD, or they will be way behind the curve as it relates to the cable companies.


Will satellite viewers continue to see liberties ebb in the wake of those who have the power and influence because monetary means? If the court order is issued and they do shut down distant networks, that will hurt for only for a little while. There are other technologies in play to compensate for that loss. If they were to go as far as turning off the LiL's; that will hurt badly, the networks and NAB will feel the hurt for as long and just as badly as the rest of us, but it will make the cable companies dance with joy.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

I wonder what the networks would charge E* if all the ndetworks had was "national" broadcasts with no locals and no local advertising?


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

hankmack said:


> I wonder what the networks would charge E* if all the ndetworks had was "national" broadcasts with no locals and no local advertising?


That would never happen. The local affilliates would be up in arms over such a deal. The networks need the affilliates because they cannot own stations in every market.

The "true white areas" need to be able to get the closet local affilliate for every network. The days of being "qualified" for geting NY/LA (outside of the actual markets) may soon be over.

The truely qualified white market area residents can thank the "movers". Charlie probably has some choice words for the "movers" as well.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> The networks need the affilliates because they cannot own stations in every market.


True but 80% + of America subscribes to either cable or satellite. Only 20% don't and many of them just aren't into TV. Therefore if NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. can offer direct to the viewer network programming half the battle would be won. In fact, some network programming is already offered directly as on demand programs or via the Internet with a little delay.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> I know the history just fine.
> 
> Come 31 December, 1999, if no law was passed, distant networks would have been terminated to everyone. That is the reason why the SHVIA was passed a month earlier.
> 
> ...


You're exactly right - without the various flavors of SHVIA through the years, we'd have NOTHING in terms of networks and superstations. Why? Because of copyright, nobody inheirently has a right to ANY tv station (except maybe for PBS).

Realistically however without satellite and cable, most affiliate stations would loose a signicficant chunk of their viewership, which of course means the major networks would loose it also.

Therefore the logical win-win would seem HD locals for everyone. BUT to insure these local stations provide decent quality HD, also allow distants to anyone that wants to pay extra for them. Either delay the distants or increase the price enough so most would have the incentive to choose the affilliate over the distant - unless of course the affilliate isn't making a reasonable effort to provide decent quality and would therfore loose the viewer to the national network.

That way, the local is being given first chance. If they choose to blow it, the network (along with the program producers and national advertisers) still get the exposure. The only reason something like this hasn't been done is because it bypasses the "mafia" of television - the NAB whom the affiliates have had to pay for protection all these years.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

I hope the day will come, when we get rid of this stupid law called SHVIA copyright censorships regardless where you live in good signal or poor signal areas. 

I just like to see what is going on in other citys local news and the most importaint of all is keep our nation together by making sure all is well!

Here in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA we have no way of getting out of town TV signal over the air execpt for WGN-TV on Comcast, Directv,Dish Network and FTA satellite dish with few more out of town stations.

There are lucky few persons and me got the broadcast waiver but losing 1 city at a time.

I was forced to give up New York SDTV and HDTV, in order to keep LA HDTV and no SDTV by subscribing to local Albuquerque TV stations!! 

The services is was getting Directv, who has no options that is controlled by NAB and the dumb copyright censorship law.

I also have FTA satellite dish where I sometime get out of town TV stations in the clear but they come and go just like on shortwave radio.:bowdown: 

Folks, the best way to be heard is send our messages to newspaper and the congress critters out there and teach NAB a lesson don't make USA like a China or Soviet Union where we can or can't watch the distant local TV stations from around the country!!

6-5-06


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And once again we must say ...
Without SHIVA and it's cousins copyright law would prevail and there would be NO DISTANTS.

The satellite laws are permissive, overriding the concerns of copyright (actually managing it) so that distant stations can be sold.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And in line with James Long, I've stated this before:

The law governing the original idea of distant networks was the Satellite Home Viewers Act of 1988, often called the SHVA. It was passed to make sure those in truly unserved network areas still received access to network programming. This is because NBC was about to scramble everything on C-band and Ku-band so that their programming must be viewed through their affiliates.

The government stepped in, as many people in rural America spent over $2,000 for a satellite dish so they could gain access to programming they couldn't get for free. Therefore, the SHVA was a compromise, to provide network programming to those that weren't able to receive it.

Fast forward to 2006, where now over 90 percent of households nationwide have access to LOCAL network affiliates through satellite.

Is the "distant network stations" service needed any longer? Maybe, but not for most of the people that can already receive their local affiliate. This is the NAB's stance, which also happens to be the stance of the networks, the affiliates, and the network affiliate boards.

And think about how long before the distant network service changes. If the cut-off date is February, 2009, for analog, it is very possible distant network service only goes to a handful of people.

The latest revision to the SHVA, called the Satellite Home Viewers' Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (also called the SHVERA), mentions that anyone receiving digital distant networks must give them up once their local digital networks are available. So, when the analog cut-off is complete, the analog distant network service should be terminated and very few people will have access to digital distants.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Is the "distant network stations" service needed any longer? Maybe, but not for most of the people that can already receive their local affiliate. This is the NAB's stance, which also happens to be the stance of the networks, the affiliates, and the network affiliate boards.


I don't think any of this is "needed", even LIL. As much as I and I'm sure many others love The Tonight show nobody would have to be put on life support if they couldn't see Jay Leno. Unrestricted access to TV is "wanted" however, with many compelling reasons not addressed by the local-into-local solution. Those reasons are:

1.	Access to already technically available High Definition network programming (now and not one of these days in the far off future).

2.	Access to network programming free from arbitrary preemption by one's local DMA affiliate.

3.	Access to the highest quality technically possible feed of network programming. All network retransmissions are not created equal. Some are pulled off the air along with snow and other quality degeneration. Others seems to be high quality feeds right from the station's master control.

4.	Network programming free of on-screen clutter superimposed on the screen by one's local affiliate but possibly not another affiliate of the same network.

5.	Access to the local programming of network affiliates in other DMAs. Many in 2006 America have ties to other cities or just might be interested in local coverage of the New York Senate race despite living in Texas; interested in a possible move, visit or investment opportunity in another city that sitting in on local news in that city could help in determining; etc. LIL only restricts access to news.

6.	Multi-time zone access to network programming. (I agree TiVo can almost as easily address this with the added benefit of being able to skip right past commercials).


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And now my opinion will be inserted here. Based on News Junky's post:


> Unrestricted access to TV is "wanted" however, with many compelling reasons not addressed by the local-into-local solution.


Understood. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't be one of the most viewed or replied to posts.


> 6. Multi-time zone access to network programming. (I agree TiVo can almost as easily address this with the added benefit of being able to skip right past commercials).


This was, of course, only viable with satellite. It started with the C-band days, until the networks started to scramble their backhauls. The only continuation occurred once the SHVA was adopted. Therefore, the only reason for the existance of time-shifting of network programming after the networks scrambled their backhauls was because of a government regulation. And it was to only address the unserved. The problem, according to the premise of this post, is that Echostar did not only address distant network programming to the unserved, and it may cost them in the end.


> 2. Access to network programming free from arbitrary preemption by one's local DMA affiliate.
> 
> 3. Access to the highest quality technically possible feed of network programming. All network retransmissions are not created equal. Some are pulled off the air alonge with snow and other quality degeneration. Others seems to be high quality feeds right from the station's master control.
> 
> 4. Network programming free of on-screen clutter superimposed on the screen by one's local affiliate but possibly not another affiliate of the same network.


All of these are separate constructs, but are similar in nature.

Arbitrary pre-emption occurs. It is part of the network-affiliate agreement. Affiliates are granted some autonomy from the network. The FCC and Congress want it that way. And because the local affiliate is most likely controlled by some station group, the station group determines why to superimpose on-screen clutter and how the station is delivered to uplink centers.

Another of the separate constructs would be the ability of the networks to own their entire chain of affilates. There are ownership caps on stations, to promote diversity of the broadcasting marketplace. The issue here is that a couple of the ways to make the marketplace diverse would be for the station group to pre-empt network programming and to provide a forum for local information by superimposing graphics during network shows.

However, if a network was allowed to own their entire affiliate chain:


> 1. Access to already technically available High Definition network programming (now and not one of these days in the far off future).


This is where DirecTV missed the boat.

Because of the similar lawsuit that DirecTV lost in 1999, DirecTV had to cut-off subscribers that failed to meet the SHVA's strict eligibility clause. Therefore, in order to embrace customers that no longer had access to network programming, DirecTV had to find a way to tell subscribers that they were involved in getting network programming back on to DirecTV. Hence, in June, 1999, DirecTV made a deal with the NAB, which ended up as the framework for the SHVIA to allow local-into-local broadcasts.

The issue here is that the networks were a bit upset that DirecTV did not contact them about becoming some kind of defacto affiliate.

Think about it. DirecTV has to turn of about a million subscribers from their distant network feeds. The networks could have found a way to create a network feed that duplicated the entire schedule, and DirecTV would have been paying for it, going straight around the local channels. It would have been great, other than the fact that local programming on satellite would have been rather non-existant.

I would suspect one of the best things that the networks could do now is to no longer use their OTA signals for HD. Instead, they could put many channels on their digital signal, and start to sell the HD feeds for a premium. It makes the most sense to me. Those that truly care about PQ will invest in the equipment, will pay directly for network feeds, and that would be a market. The rest of the viewing public could then watch the normal local SD or analog feeds. It is a win-win situation, as DirecTV and Dish Network could show the entire network slate nationwide at a premium, which would be good for the networks, while the local affiliates could concentrate on more locally produced efforts, instead of using most of their bandwidth for HD.


> 5. Access to the local programming of network affiliates in other DMAs. Many in 2006 America have ties to other cities or just might be interested in local coverage of the New York Senate race despite living in Texas; interested in a possible move, visit or investment opportunity in another city that sitting in on local news in that city could help in determining; etc. LIL only restricts access to news.


This isn't so difficult as it is time-consuming. Every station can sell their newscasts nationwide, as the station owns almost all of the content. The only real issue is the licensing of the national feeds provided by others, used as the snip-clips from other national interest stories. The rates for those may climb.

Of course, now I need to say this couldn't happen for DirecTV. All the Texas channels are on a spot-beam that really doesn't go outside of Texas, so I wouldn't be able to see the Dallas news based upon technical limitation. However, I'd be able to see most of the Northeastern US's channels.

There would need to be someone to set the restrictions on the "blackouts" for only the newscasts, so someone would have to set times when a local channel could be available for sale on a daily basis. That is a lot of stations, and neither DirecTV nor Dish Network can get the blackouts right on their sports packages, so I'd fully suspect a "Newscast Ticket" to be fraught with incorrect blackouts.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Arbitrary pre-emption occurs. It is part of the network-affiliate agreement. Affiliates are granted some autonomy from the network. The FCC and Congress want it that way.


But does the public want it that way? Personally, I think it's a good thing when alternative programming is offered. My only issue is when that alternative programming is not an option but a mandate by virtue of the fact that the local affiliate is the 24/7 exclusive outlet for the network's programs. I also like graphics superimposed on the screen if important weather or news information breaks. However, based on the posts I've read from other here it would be nice if the viewer had to ability to choose whether on not he wishes to see extra graphics on top on the network programs. The often presumed solutions are to either get the local affiliate to stop but then you can't please everybody, or allow access to a distant market. Now that I think about with technology available today a better option would be developing TV sets that let the viewer turn the extra graphics on or off. Better still, let the viewer select the DMA for which he wishes to see extra graphics. This would probably require an Internet tie in that will superimpose other market same network news-ticker, etc. graphics. Most importantly, something that would allow the viewer to turn them off if desired.



> Because of the similar lawsuit that DirecTV lost in 1999, DirecTV had to cut-off subscribers that failed to meet the SHVA's strict eligibility clause. &#8230;The issue here is that the networks were a bit upset that DirecTV did not contact them about becoming some kind of defacto affiliate.


Very interesting! I don't know how you know all this but I appreciate your insight and willingness to share. I wonder if its not too late. Again, for me its less about not wanting my local affiliate for network shows but rather local content from other markets. Everything that alters the status quo might be a step toward being able to see other market local TV. I also like time shifting and higher PQ that my local affiliate.



> This isn't so difficult as it is time-consuming. Every station can sell their newscasts nationwide, as the station owns almost all of the content.


I'm sure if market forces created a market for it I'm sure something could be done to expand the spot beam footprints. The easiest solution IMHO would be to create maybe 5 or 6 regional local news channels that rebroadcast local news from the stations in that region with a slight delay nationally (compare to the soap opera channel).

1.	North East
2.	South East and PR/VI
3.	Mid West
4.	Mid South
5.	North West and AK
6.	South West and HI.

Thanks.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> <snip>....
> I would suspect one of the best things that the networks could do now is to no longer use their OTA signals for HD. Instead, they could put many channels on their digital signal, and start to sell the HD feeds for a premium. It makes the most sense to me. Those that truly care about PQ will invest in the equipment, will pay directly for network feeds, and that would be a market. The rest of the viewing public could then watch the normal local SD or analog feeds. It is a win-win situation, as DirecTV and Dish Network could show the entire network slate nationwide at a premium, which would be good for the networks, while the local affiliates could concentrate on more locally produced efforts, instead of using most of their bandwidth for HD........


Your idea has merit too. Trouble is many affilliates have had their cake and eat it too for so long (it's our way or the highway), I don't see them inclined to give up anything (HD viewers) without a fight.

I wonder what the $$ value is per viewer to the average affiliate? I have no idea but someone must.

Maybe have a certain % of the distant "HD fee" revert back to the affiliate plus to get that feed you must also get the local.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

I think I recall hearing it was around $50 per household per year but I could be wrong. I'd be willing to pay that to all of my local network stations as a license fee to see all other network affiliates within range of my dish.


----------



## dishdude019 (Jun 9, 2006)

Michael P said:


> The "true white areas" need to be able to get the closet local affilliate for every network. The days of being "qualified" for geting NY/LA (outside of the actual markets) may soon be over.
> 
> The truely qualified white market area residents can thank the "movers". Charlie probably has some choice words for the "movers" as well.


Hi everybody.. new to posting here. I hestitate because I know people get really excited here, especially over this issue. But since I do, too, I wanted to share my opinion. I mean no disrespect in doing so, so before I begin, I wanted to state this. I do respect those who differ from my opinion.

I completely disagree that "movers" are responsible for the distant nets being in danger of going away. If anything, our lawmakers and the courts shoulder that responsibilty. If the regulations weren't so unfair and senseless, people wouldn't be forced to "move" to receive the stations they want-- a right that I believe all should enjoy. Some people on here have said "Just because people want to watch an out-of-market TV station doesn't mean they should have the right to do so. Pick up your family and move to New York or LA if you want to watch their TV stations." This type of argument could only come from someone who works for a local affiliate or has a vested interest in a broadcasting venture. I worked for several TV stations in the past, but I never wanted someone to be forced to watch my signal-- I WANTED IT TO BE THEIR CHOICE.

I know, know, without the law we couldn't have distant signals at all, but does that really matter when the whole goal seems to be take them away and force us to watch local stations? Therefore, to me, the law seems of little benefit in the first place. I LOVE LOCAL STATIONS. I LOVE BROADCASTING... BUT I ALSO LOVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. The whole point of satellite technology is to enable us to have MORE viewing options.

The best thing, I think, would have been a law that requires the purchase of the locals in order to receive distants. That would have been reasonable and economically-rewarding to all involved. Locals could still count subscribers as a part of their viewing audiences for advertisers. Quite frankly, studies have shown (I can't site specific studies but I studied such in college) that most viewers, regardless of affiliates they receive, turn to their local stations most of the time, especially for news. I think the problem here that many people have, and count me among them, is that someone says "You MUST watch your local NBC affiliate at all times when you want to see an NBC signal." I quite frankly believe there's room for all stations on the dish. Further, I don't think local stations should consider distants in other time zones a threat. I know: "Get a TIVO or DVR and it won't be a problem." NO, it wouldn't, but what if I don't want a DVR? What if I want to watch TV out of Los Angeles, just because I desire to do so because in 2006 technology offers such opportunity? It's not an valid point because sadly, while technology affords such an awesome wonder, the law does not.

I do applaud Dish Network and Charlie for pressing for consumer rights in this. I really think they would like to see customers have their choice of stations. I know some will say E doesn't care nor does Charlie, but I really do think they all care about choice for customers. To me, it just seems sad that we have the ability like never before to see stations all over the country and that despite these new advances, out-of-market viewing is illegal. That really, really bothers me.

I'm putting alot out here, (I've held it all in too long :lol: ) Further, why not give NY/LA superstation status? They're the two biggest markets in America and without those two great cities. all these local stations wouldn't be getting network feeds. I just can't fathom why some people (again no offense) on this board think this whole elimination of distants is so fair and good. What about folks who receive two or three ABC affiliates via antenna (and there are areas where such happens), should we make a law that forces them to only watch the affiliate Nielsen has decided is their "local" one?

When we have laws limiting satelitte TV delivery of local stations, WATCH OUT all you satellite radio fans. I can see that coming next. YOU MUST LISTEN TO ONLY LOCAL RADIO STATIONS because they have local commercials. Does this whole way of thinking bother anyone else? I guess what I'm asking, beyond the technicality of exclusitivity and copyright laws which I understand, are the laws truly fair to American consumers willing to pay for distants, especially considering cable's ability, via an older law, to deliver duplicate network programming?

Thanks for allowing me to vent. Best wishes!


----------



## Hondo (Sep 15, 2005)

I couldn't agree more with what Dishdude019 has posted. That pretty well sums up my feelings to a "T" as well.


Excellent post


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

*When we have laws limiting satelitte TV delivery of local stations, WATCH OUT all you satellite radio fans. I can see that coming next. YOU MUST LISTEN TO ONLY LOCAL RADIO STATIONS because they have local commercials. Does this whole way of thinking bother anyone else?*

That is an excellent point and really what the hell is the difference between satellite TV and satellite radio ??? Both allow the subscribers to recieve non-local national programming.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

We can beat our gums all day long and nothing is going to change; because our government is owned by corporations!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

The baseball games on XM take the home team fed and send it to the country. I'm sure WFAN is upset when I listen via San Diego's radio feed and deprive WFAN of their God given right to force feed me ads.. Why is that legal and the TV version is not?

Ironically, this may wind up being the best thing that could happen. When a couple hundred thousand people find their distant broadcast networks go dark SOMEONE in D.C. is going to get a lot of phone calls.....


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Apples and Oranges again. 

National delivery of network content which has been sold to the local station on an exclusive basis.

Not the same as national delivery of content which is the property of the national service or has been sold to the national service.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

JohnH said:


> Apples and Oranges again.
> 
> National delivery of network content which has been sold to the local station on an exclusive basis.
> 
> Not the same as national delivery of content which is the property of the national service or has been sold to the national service.


But it is the same thing in certain circumstances.
If a local station has the local rights to a show like "Rush Limbaugh", and you listen to Rush on a different out-of-market station, you are doing the same thing that the local network "movers" are doing.
However, most of the satellite radio stations do not AFAIK carry any syndicated programming like that, do they? So this may not even be an issue.

Internet radio stations do carry some syndicated content; IMHO, they are more of a threat to the local stations.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

dishdude019 said:


> I completely disagree that "movers" are responsible for the distant nets being in danger of going away. If anything, our lawmakers and the courts shoulder that responsibilty. If the regulations weren't so unfair and senseless, people wouldn't be forced to "move" to receive the stations they want-- a right that I believe all should enjoy.


Movers are NOT responsible for the possible removal of distant network service; Dish Network is, as they don't have the records to back up and qualify their distant network subscriber base correctly. Dish Network has entirely too many people that should not be receiving distant network service. Whether or not the regulations are unfair and senseless, Dish Network did not complete their due diligence in order to continually use the license provided to them by law.


dishdude019 said:


> Some people on here have said "Just because people want to watch an out-of-market TV station doesn't mean they should have the right to do so. Pick up your family and move to New York or LA if you want to watch their TV stations." This type of argument could only come from someone who works for a local affiliate or has a vested interest in a broadcasting venture. I worked for several TV stations in the past, but I never wanted someone to be forced to watch my signal-- I WANTED IT TO BE THEIR CHOICE.


I do not work for a local affiliate. I do not work in broadcasting. And trust me, no one was forced to watch your signal; they could change the channel.


dishdude019 said:


> I know, know, without the law we couldn't have distant signals at all, but does that really matter when the whole goal seems to be take them away and force us to watch local stations?


Uh, the whole idea was to provide the UNSERVED with network programming, not to provide people with alternatives. Hence, distant network service was born, to give the UNSERVED network programming. It was never meant to be a "choice".


dishdude019 said:


> The whole point of satellite technology is to enable us to have MORE viewing options.


No, it isn't. The only point of satellite technology is to not use wires over long distances. HBO and ESPN moved to satellite rather quickly, to use it as the distribution platform to cable companies. The small dish companies were started to provide an alternative to cable. Or for those unserved with cable, it was a viable alternative to C-band.


dishdude019 said:


> To me, it just seems sad that we have the ability like never before to see stations all over the country and that despite these new advances, out-of-market viewing is illegal. That really, really bothers me.


Once again, it isn't illegal. Just have Dish Network and DirecTV call up WJLA, the DC ABC affiliate, and have them sign a contract for nationwide retransmission of the station. Of course, DirecTV, Dish Network and WJLA will have to gain copyright clearances for all of the programming on WJLA in order to broadcast the station nationwide. And that is where the talks will fail, because the network and the syndicators will not clear their copyrights for nationwide delivery.

Like I have been saying, it is not illegal. But none of the content providers, the networks or the syndicators, will allow nationwide delivery of their content. They distribute their programming how they see fit.


dishdude019 said:


> Further, why not give NY/LA superstation status? They're the two biggest markets in America and without those two great cities. all these local stations wouldn't be getting network feeds. I just can't fathom why some people (again no offense) on this board think this whole elimination of distants is so fair and good. What about folks who receive two or three ABC affiliates via antenna (and there are areas where such happens), should we make a law that forces them to only watch the affiliate Nielsen has decided is their "local" one?


A "superstation", the way the law reads, is one that was on satellite prior to some date in 1995, and wasn't a network. There will not be any more stations added to the superstation list. And while I don't think this elimination of distants is fair and good, you must know why the entire distant network service was implemented: to provide rural Americans without access to network programming the network feeds. If every local station in the US was on satellite, there would be no need for "distant network service".

As to the two or three ABC station issue, a consumer is always free to choose which primary transmission they wish to watch, provided it can be received over the air at their location. When another company is used to deliver a copy of the transmission, there are rules governing that copy. And I sure would like to have the DC locals I can receive over-the-air in my Baltimore market local channel package. The law allows for it, but DirecTV has not implemented the significantly-viewed list for any DC stations in the Baltimore market at this time. So I watch the DC locals with an antenna.


dishdude019 said:


> When we have laws limiting satelitte TV delivery of local stations, WATCH OUT all you satellite radio fans. I can see that coming next. YOU MUST LISTEN TO ONLY LOCAL RADIO STATIONS because they have local commercials. Does this whole way of thinking bother anyone else? I guess what I'm asking, beyond the technicality of exclusitivity and copyright laws which I understand, are the laws truly fair to American consumers willing to pay for distants, especially considering cable's ability, via an older law, to deliver duplicate network programming?


First, there are major differences between satellite radio and satellite TV. The satellite radio players, XM and Sirius, produce their in-house programming (for the most part). There are mechanisms in place to pay the artists for their content, the same mechanisms that govern traditional over-the-air radio, for paying royalties to the artists and songwriters.

Second, there will not be a law that "governs" satellite radio, unless as the NAB mentions, if when buying a new car the satellite radio service is turned on as a promotion. Some people with youngsters would be surprised to hear Opie and Anthony or Howard Stern with some quite inappropriate content, if they didn't know the satellite radio service was turned on.

Third, cable operates under a different set of rules. Cable received a, for lack of a better term, "copyright exemption". Remember how basebal received an "anti-trust exemption", which was given by the courts? Well, cable received their copyright exemption from the United Artists v. Fortnightly at the Supreme Court. So cable doesn't need to worry about clearing copyrights, but they still need carriage contracts, and they must follow network and syndicated exclusivity rules regulated by the FCC.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

dishdude019 said:


> Hi everybody.. new to posting here........
> 
> ......Thanks for allowing me to vent. Best wishes!


Talk about making a heckuva first impression! I agree wholeheartedly by the way. Sure there are rules and regs that stand in the way of giving us the freedom of choice we'd like to have but those rules were drafted back in the day where local television stations were the only way to distribute national programming. Things have changed a lot since then technology-wise but the NAB wants to keep the status quo since they've found a nice comfy way to line their pockets, even if the rules don't fit the world we live in anymore. If they're smart they'll figure out a way to embrace the world the way it is now and profit from it. If they don't they'll manage to survive for a few more years by trying to squash any new ways around their system by throwing money at congress and the courts but eventually they'll have to change or be rendered obsolete. In the end the market (that's us) always prevails, because someone always sees the wisdom of giving the people what they want and profiting from it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dishdude019 said:


> The best thing, I think, would have been a law that requires the purchase of the locals in order to receive distants.


This is a requirement of the SHVERA.


> Further, I don't think local stations should consider distants in other time zones a threat.


This is actually of great concern to any programming provider as they are held responsible for "non-family" content that plays before a certain hour.


> I know: "Get a TIVO or DVR and it won't be a problem." NO, it wouldn't, but what if I don't want a DVR?


Trust me -- everyone _wants_ a DVR.


> What if I want to watch TV out of Los Angeles, just because I desire to do so because in 2006 technology offers such opportunity? It's not an valid point because sadly, while technology affords such an awesome wonder, the law does not.


I think about places like Wyoming and Louisiana and wonder what would happen to their programming options if distants were readily available. As I recall, the entire state of Wyoming has seven or eight full power broadcast stations. It is hard enough as it is to get truly local content unless it comes at the hands of your cable provider.


> I just can't fathom why some people (again no offense) on this board think this whole elimination of distants is so fair and good.


I would hope that without distants, local viewers would put a whole lot more pressure on the broadcasters to get their offerings up to standard. It is always easier to go around, but at some point it is probably best to address the problem directly.


> What about folks who receive two or three ABC affiliates via antenna (and there are areas where such happens), should we make a law that forces them to only watch the affiliate Nielsen has decided is their "local" one?


This gets into Significantly Viewed and I'd bet that most people in these situations would pick the one that seemed the most relevant (kind of like picking one satellite provider over another). I have access to two markets (Portland, OR and Eugene, OR) via my OTA antenna and unless Eugene is running a particular syndicated show (Star Trek re-runs for example) that Portland doesn't, I stick with Portland.

The issue with distants isn't so much the overlap, but the fact that often the larger market local news programs are "better" than the national programs. Make no mistake. The networks are constantly looking over their shoulders to see if any of their affiliates are about to run them over.


> When we have laws limiting satelitte TV delivery of local stations, WATCH OUT all you satellite radio fans. I can see that coming next. YOU MUST LISTEN TO ONLY LOCAL RADIO STATIONS because they have local commercials.


The difference here is that satellite radio, like satellite television, is a pay service and except for those six channels on XM, all of the content is relatively home grown and exclusive. Radio is a whole different can of worms from television with respect to distribution. Radio stations don't find themselves having to negotiate carriage agreements with local cable companies and more often than not, their content is home grown or from syndication.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

harsh said:


> dishdude019 said:
> 
> 
> > The best thing, I think, would have been a law that requires the purchase of the locals in order to receive distants.
> ...


Huh? A requirement to pay for your locals in order to get distants?
Where did you read that from?
In fact, SHVERA _prevents_ you from getting the distants if your locals are available.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> dishdude019 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of satellite technology is to enable us to have MORE viewing options.
> ...


Or, in other words, to provide more viewing options, like the dude said.

If DBS were solely about technological efficiency, the DoJ wouldn't have blocked the D*/E* merger, and we would have only one DBS company now instead of two. But apparently, having access to two or three affiliates of cable and satellite networks like CNN, ESPN, and TNT is considered good public policy.

Question is, why wouldn't it be equally good public policy to have multiple affiliates of ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC?



Kheldar said:


> Huh? A requirement to pay for your locals in order to get distants?
> Where did you read that from?


SHVERA requires digital distant subs to buy local analog and digital signals as soon as they become available in order to continue receiving digital distants.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

dishdude019 , great first post. I can agree with most of what you wrote. I had also posted some time ago on another board the idea that why not make a distant purchase contingent upon also buying the locals. I do see some great thoughts on this such as the problem of having family programming start too early if you had an East Coast local out west. But overall it does come down to distribution rights, and unless (and beyond unlikely) Congress acts I don't see anything changing. 
It amazes me how industries get it so wrong so often. The Movie industry fought video because it would harm their business. Business was never better since the widespread use of video/DVD. It made people more aware of movies and instead of just renting them, they would go to the movie houses more often also.

Same with the record industry. I can appreciate not wanting free illegal downloads, but they go beyond that when they oppose new receivers like the XM Inno. It is set up in such a way that it actually promotes the buying of music you hear. The Broadcast industry is in the same rediculas boat. Instead of embracing new technology and make it work to their advantage also, they just oppose everything. Maybe a show on NBC would do better when up against American Idol for instance if more people could watch it at a later time. A DVR that most of us have that cannot record one channel while watching another live does not solve that, so the NBC show in that example does not get watched. Or the times the local channel pre-emps the programming as our locals do from time to time.
Point is, they don't think out of the box at all or to the future.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> If DBS were solely about technological efficiency, the DoJ wouldn't have blocked the D*/E* merger, and we would have only one DBS company now instead of two. But apparently, having access to two or three affiliates of cable and satellite networks like CNN, ESPN, and TNT is considered good public policy.
> 
> Question is, why wouldn't it be equally good public policy to have multiple affiliates of ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC?


This isn't even a good argument.

Having access to two or three affilates of cable and satellite networks which are the exact same feed is much different than having access to mulitple affiliates of the broadcast networks. The "satellite networks" are the same feed nationwide; the same ESPN is broadcast to all homes, and ESPN owns it all. The broadcast networks are different by affiliate area; the ABC's in DC and Seattle are not owned nor "programmed" completely by ABC, as the network only owns about 10 of the 200+ ABC affiliates.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> The "satellite networks" are the same feed nationwide


Not necessarily. There are numerous cable feeds of Headline News that contain local news inserts every 30 minutes, usually supplied by some local broadcast station.

It's true that most cable network feeds are the same except for local commercials, but they don't have to be, and besides, the same could be said of many WB cable feeds and even some of the low power affiliates of ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC.

But what does that have to do with anything?



> This isn't even a good argument.


Yeah.

Nice duck and weave, Greg. Now try actually answering my question:

Why wouldn't it be good public policy to promote competition among affiliates of the broadcast networks?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

joblo said:


> Why wouldn't it be good public policy to promote competition among affiliates of the broadcast networks?


It is not good policy to force an affiliate in Lafayette, LA to compete with an affiliate in New York, New York. They both have their public responsibilities to the areas they serve. It is also best that you watch the affiliate in Lafayette, LA if you live there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Kheldar said:


> Huh? A requirement to pay for your locals in order to get distants?
> Where did you read that from?


This is from the SHVERA fact sheet dated May 2006. Rereading the Word document I see that this is a requirement for SV stations. While SV stations are considered "Distants", I was mistaken in the context of this discussion. Sorry.


> In fact, SHVERA _prevents_ you from getting the distants if your locals are available.


Sorry about pasting the following, but it is only available in a Word document on the FCC website www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/shvera.doc.


SHVERA fact sheet said:


> 6. If I am not currently receiving distant analog signals, can I subscribe to them now?
> The answer will depend on whether the satellite carrier makes local-into-local service (local broadcast stations) available in your DMA.
> If your satellite carrier offers local-into-local service: If you did not subscribe to distant signals on or before December 8, 2004, you are not eligible for distant signals if your satellite company offers local-into-local service in your television market. You may be able to get a waiver of the "no-distant-where-local" requirement from the local television stations, and you may check with your satellite company to see if this is possible.
> If your satellite carrier does not offer local-into-local service in your market:
> You may be eligible to receive distant analog signals if your household is predicted to be "unserved," as defined above.


It is the "no-distant-where-local" waiver that still allows distants.

Then again, since most of this fact sheet seems to contradict itself (you cannot, but if you do this, you can), who knows.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> Nice duck and weave, Greg. Now try actually answering my question:
> 
> Why wouldn't it be good public policy to promote competition among affiliates of the broadcast networks?


Because it runs counter to Congress' and FCC's stance that OTA broadcasting is about *localism*. These stations are each licensed to serve the community, and the community has a say if they feel the station does not serve the community. So why would the government be involved in helping a local channel have a nationwide reach?

And, if a network was forced to compete amongst its own affiliates, do you think something drastic would happen? And that is why no one can answer my question: Why is it a good idea to insert a government regulation that could allow you to see all 200+ ABC affiliates? I understand the arguments put forth so far, such as time-shifting and alternate programming, but no one wants to understand that the networks CREATED this business model. And most here want to destroy what the networks have created, simply to get something different.

The government is loathe to create regulations that are overly onerous to a business, unless it involves safety or social issues. The government's stance on "localism" is a safety issue. You, nor I, may want to see the screens covered by giant bugs with severe weather maps during network programming, but the first time it doesn't happen, the LOCAL people will be demanding the FCC to have the station turn in their license.

And none of this will ever change until the government removes their localism agenda and remove the caps on station ownership. Why would it matter if CBS or any other network owned their entire affliate structure? If CBS owned their entire affiliate structure, everyone on Dish Network would be entitled to CBS in HD.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

JohnH said:


> It is not good policy to force an affiliate in Lafayette, LA to compete with an affiliate in New York, New York. They both have their public responsibilities to the areas they serve.


So do local newspapers, but they seem able to discharge that responsibility despite widespread availability of out-of-town papers. What's different about TV? Why does TV need a protectionist infrastructure in order to serve local areas?



> It is also best that you watch the affiliate in Lafayette, LA if you live there.


Why? Best for whom? By what criteria?



Greg Bimson said:


> Because it runs counter to Congress' and FCC's stance that OTA broadcasting is about *localism*.


Ah, yes, the great Orwellian mantra from the NAB's Ministry of Truth.

But it's economic nonsense. How does the maintenance of exclusive distribution zones for *national* programming promote *localism*, assuming that by "localism", you mean local programming and not just local commercials?

If you truly want local programming, the first thing you should do is make the carriage of *national* programming on local stations *LESS lucrative*, not more lucrative, so that stations have an economic incentive to produce more local programming instead of filling their airwaves with national programming.



> These stations are each licensed to serve the community, and the community has a say if they feel the station does not serve the community.


What say is that? The licensing process? Possibly the most glacial government bureaucracy on the face of the earth? What happened to "free markets", Greg?



> So why would the government be involved in helping a local channel have a nationwide reach?


Not necessarily nationwide reach. In fact, I don't care if affiliate reach is national, regional, or only 5 blocks. I simply prefer a viewer-responsive competitive market. Eliminating local exclusivity for nationally distributed programming is just one necessary step to creating that.



> And, if a network was forced to compete amongst its own affiliates, do you think something drastic would happen?


Well, it would give the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, VA an incentive to broadcast ABC programming in stereo sound instead of mono, just as a for instance. (Yes, that's right, _stereo_, not Dolby Digital 5.1, just stereo would be an improvement.)



> And that is why no one can answer my question: Why is it a good idea to insert a government regulation that could allow you to see all 200+ ABC affiliates?


Because it would make the TV market more responsive to what viewers want. Viewers would gravitate towards affiliates with better presentation, whatever that might mean, and other stations would follow suit or try to go one better to attract viewers. Or in other words, the normal consumer benefits of a competitive market.



> I understand the arguments put forth so far, such as time-shifting and alternate programming, but no one wants to understand that the networks CREATED this business model. And most here want to destroy what the networks have created, simply to get something different.


It was created in a different technological era, and you, yourself, acknowledge two paragraphs later that those same networks would likely destroy it themselves if the ownership caps were removed.

Which brings up another question: what good is diversity of ownership if viewers are not allowed to see the stations of all these diverse owners? In Charlottesville, VA, for instance, just two companies own the local affiliates of all six commercial broadcast networks. Shouldn't viewers have more choice than that?



> The government is loathe to create regulations that are overly onerous to a business, unless it involves safety or social issues. The government's stance on "localism" is a safety issue. You, nor I, may want to see the screens covered by giant bugs with severe weather maps during network programming, but the first time it doesn't happen, the LOCAL people will be demanding the FCC to have the station turn in their license.


This is weak. First off, local broadcasters are but half a dozen or so of several hundred channels now available on satellite and digital cable. So, if there's a safety issue, then the cable or satellite service should be required to superimpose a warning across all its channels, and that would, of course, cover out of town network affiliates along with everything else.

Second, why should local bugs be a licensing issue? What not let viewers vote with their subscription dollars, whether they prefer stations that provide weather warnings or those that don't?

This is the thing I find most bizarre about your posts, Greg. You're obviously very knowledgeable, you make a lot of good points, but you're all over the map. In one post you're extolling the virtues of "free markets", and in the next, government is your best friend. What are you truly in favor of? How would YOU design the broadcast market, if it were up to you?


----------



## JohnGfun (Jan 16, 2004)

If the court rules to stop DVR service will... E* just stop production and we keep what we have...or will thay recall all DVRs and stop production?

Thanks


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

JohnGfun said:


> If the court rules to stop DVR service will... E* just stop production and we keep what we have...or will thay recall all DVRs and stop production?
> 
> Thanks


Whether or not they actually recall the hardware, I don't know, but I doubt it.
If it isn't recalled, and if TiVo gets the injunction, the existing hardware would have to stop infringing on the patent.
A simple software download disabling the DVR service would probably be a better option for both companies: when (if?) they do reach a compromise, another software download would re-enable the service at almost no expense to TiVo or E*.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

IF the court tells Dish to stop the dvr portion of the dish receivers I figure old Charlie will work out a deal with Tivo YESTERDAY. THen the dvr fees we have been paying all these years will go to pay for the lawsuit fines and fees. I don't know why Charlie couldn't just buy the damn company and be done with it. Then the lawsuit would be withdrawn and he would be making money off of Directv and the stand alone subscriptions. He would also have something he has never had before: A software that works without bugs.


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IF the court tells Dish to stop the dvr portion of the dish receivers I figure old Charlie will work out a deal with Tivo YESTERDAY. THen the dvr fees we have been paying all these years will go to pay for the lawsuit fines and fees. I don't know why Charlie couldn't just buy the damn company and be done with it. Then the lawsuit would be withdrawn and he would be making money off of Directv and the stand alone subscriptions. He would also have something he has never had before: A software that works without bugs.


Exactly !!! Agree 100%


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

joblo said:


> So do local newspapers, but they seem able to discharge that responsibility despite widespread availability of out-of-town papers. What's different about TV? Why does TV need a protectionist infrastructure in order to serve local areas?


How many local newspapers do you have in your hometown? How many different views does each offer? How does that compare with the number of local television channels? Do they charge for the newspaper? I don't think your comparison is apples to apples.


> If you truly want local programming, the first thing you should do is make the carriage of *national* programming on local stations *LESS lucrative*, not more lucrative, so that stations have an economic incentive to produce more local programming instead of filling their airwaves with national programming.


It isn't about promoting local content; it is about having local bandwidth available to disseminate emergency information and otherwise provide a service in the local public interest.


> Which brings up another question: what good is diversity of ownership if viewers are not allowed to see the stations of all these diverse owners? In Charlottesville, VA, for instance, just two companies own the local affiliates of all six commercial broadcast networks. Shouldn't viewers have more choice than that?


The issue is that if one company owns everything, they can use their bargaining power in one region as a leveraging tool over bargaining in another region. Imagine a situation where the owner says that unless you drop my prices in this market, I'll pull your programming from other markets. This is the beginning of a vicious circle.


> First off, local broadcasters are but half a dozen or so of several hundred channels now available on satellite and digital cable. So, if there's a safety issue, then the cable or satellite service should be required to superimpose a warning across all its channels, and that would, of course, cover out of town network affiliates along with everything else.


Given the rate of Amber Alerts and other emergency information across the entire area of satellite, there would be a constant, possibly stacked, crawl on all channels. This is a near-sighted suggestion.


> What not let viewers vote with their subscription dollars, whether they prefer stations that provide weather warnings or those that don't?


Satellite isn't set up to do crawls at the individual receiver level. The appearance of different formats has made this even more complicated. If this technology was implemented on a national basis, then your suggestion might be worth contemplating.

In case you haven't been around television, it is very expensive to create content. Even live news shows have been reduced to the talent and three or four production crew with robotic cameras. Given that it takes at least four hours to do a digitally assembled one hour production, it would take dozens of producers and hundreds of staff to fill a day with locally produced programming.

Imagine the mess of the syndicators having to deal with each station as opposed to striking a single deal with a network?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Why does a government "taking" of a private content not get any flack around here? That is what distant networks are.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnH said:


> Why does a government "taking" of a private content not get any flack around here? That is what distant networks are.


I'd say it was a lack of respect for the private concern that is being taken from. Some think it's OK steal from a major corporation.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

JohnH said:


> Why does a government "taking" of a private content not get any flack around here? That is what distant networks are.


It may be "private content"; but it is the publics air ways, they are using. Air ways that they were given!


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

A similar analogy to me is like a buying a Chevy. There are thousands of Chevrolet dealers nationwide but because of the law, you can only buy that Impala from your local Chevy dealer. Local broadcasters should not have the right to FORCE anyone or keep anyone from viewing the same product that every other CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX affiliate is showing. If these locals want to compete for eyeballs, then professionalize your news staff(not some high school dropout doing the local weather), and put some money into your local programming and then the audience will find you. The current model does nothing to encourage locals to do much of anything to update and modernize to keep viewers as they know it's either them or nothing. Our Fox affliate actually had higher viewership ratings for a half-hour infomerical on the Little Giant Ladder on a Saturday morning than they did for the nightly 10 p.m newcast. That's how BAD they are.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

clapple said:


> It may be "private content"; but it is the publics air ways, they are using. Air ways that they were given!


Sad but true? There was a day when satellite reception was as sacred as cable. It was considered private and the content that you got you paid for without question. Satellite reception was not considered, "air ways." Now that the Government is so involved, perhaps all satellite reception should become free to all of us without encryption, and the terrestrial TV stations should be allowed to broadcast anything and everything they desire including XXX content because we now have parental control. Better than that lets just step back in time to the puritan era and ban everything.
Just to stay on point, shouldn't these laws be designed to protect without infringement?


----------



## dishdude019 (Jun 9, 2006)

Hey gang,

Thanks for all the response to my post. It's nice to be welcomed. Even thank you for sharing to those who disagreed with what I said.  To most of you who said you had similiar viewpoints on Distants, thanks for letting me know others feel just as pasionnately about it.

I look forward to posting more in the future.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

minnow said:


> A similar analogy to me is like a buying a Chevy. There are thousands of Chevrolet dealers nationwide but because of the law, you can only buy that Impala from your local Chevy dealer.


Interesting analogy, but I think if GM wanted you to only buy from your local Chevy dealer rather than shop around, they could make that happen. For example, I cannot go out of my area to purchase Paradigm speakers. Each Paradigm dealer has a set exclusive market area in which they are allowed to sell. If a customer doesn't live within that area (and proof of address must be given), the dealer is not permitted to sell to that customer. If the dealer would make the sale, Paradigm would revoke his dealer status and possibly sue the dealer as well. Not saying it's right (since it isn't), but market exclusivity isn't necessarily something we have much control over.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

BoisePaul said:


> Interesting analogy, but I think if GM wanted you to only buy from your local Chevy dealer rather than shop around, they could make that happen. For example, I cannot go out of my area to purchase Paradigm speakers. Each Paradigm dealer has a set exclusive market area in which they are allowed to sell...


Sound like you are describing a, "Free" market. The difference here is Paradigm gets to make their own decisions as to whom will sell their product to who and where. The same is true with GM. GM could do business the same way as Paradigm but they like the majority of car manufacturing companies they want to make as much money as they can in a competitive market.

So IMHO once finished with the satellite companies, maybe the next focus will be upon Paradigm, GM, and the rest of 'em for the creation a law (Consumer Comfort and Ease in Shopping Bill of Rights  catchy title ) then have a newly created organization to regulate the businesses and have the law enforced by a high federal court. There could be massive amounts of letters, words, sentences, and sections that create a whole new batch of loopholes so at least the slippery ones can make a better profit.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

JohnH said:


> It is not good policy to force an affiliate in Lafayette, LA to compete with an affiliate in New York, New York. They both have their public responsibilities to the areas they serve.





joblo said:


> So do local newspapers, but they seem able to discharge that responsibility despite widespread availability of out-of-town papers. What's different about TV? Why does TV need a protectionist infrastructure in order to serve local areas?





Greg Bimson said:


> Because it runs counter to Congress' and FCC's stance that OTA broadcasting is about localism.





joblo said:


> Ah, yes, the great Orwellian mantra from the NAB's Ministry of Truth.
> 
> But it's economic nonsense. How does the maintenance of exclusive distribution zones for national programming promote localism, assuming that by "localism", you mean local programming and not just local commercials?


Can we step back into the 1950's for a moment?

Because the FCC saw how radio was motivated to create networks, the FCC decided to impose more restrictions on the new television medium. Their restrictions were to stop TV networks from poping up. Well, where there is a will there is a way...

The networks were limited to owning five affiliates, nationwide. And they certainly didn't need anyone to be rebroadcasting their content back into their coverage areas. So they granted exclusive distribution models for affiliates they signed up. The affiliates they signed with wanted the same rights as the O&O's.


JohnH said:


> It is also best that you watch the affiliate in Lafayette, LA if you live there.





joblo said:


> Why? Best for whom? By what criteria?


Congress and the FCC's criteria. The reason OTA broadcasting exists is to promote localism, the Orwellian theory notwithstanding, although you cannot truly call the NAB "Big Brother" as it isn't government.

The problem here is that the networks want to exercise their business and distribution model as they see fit, yet you don't want them to have that right.


joblo said:


> What happened to "free markets", Greg?


Hmm.

So, a "free market" is defined as the ability for two parties to come to an agreement without government oversight. So, when NBC signs up a new affiliate, and gives them exclusive distribution over their broadcast area, that is considered free market. What's your definition? Where the consumer can buy anything they want, from anyone, and throw government regulations in to nullify exclusive arrangements? That's more "Big Brother" than Orwell.

Oh, and here's the kicker. Do you know why there aren't two NBC stations in New York City? NBC owns their affiliate there. Do they really want to sign up another NBC affiliate in New York, so that they can divide their viewership over two stations? Importation of a distant network would work exactly in this manner.


joblo said:


> I simply prefer a viewer-responsive competitive market. Eliminating local exclusivity for nationally distributed programming is just one necessary step to creating that.





joblo said:


> Well, it would give the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, VA an incentive to broadcast ABC programming in stereo sound instead of mono, just as a for instance. (Yes, that's right, stereo, not Dolby Digital 5.1, just stereo would be an improvement.)


But this is another of the free market paradigms. If a business does not provide a product you like, then don't consume as a consumer. Stop watching that Lynchburg ABC station. They should figure it out when ratings tank and everyone says they aren't watching because they don't broadcast stereo.


joblo said:


> First off, local broadcasters are but half a dozen or so of several hundred channels now available on satellite and digital cable. So, if there's a safety issue, then the cable or satellite service should be required to superimpose a warning across all its channels, and that would, of course, cover out of town network affiliates along with everything else.


Well, the local station is required to do local emergencies; it is part of their license to serve the community. Also, local cable companies are required to follow EAS alerts. The cable company is a local franchise, and the FCC requires EAS alerts on cable.

Satellite is exempt from EAS alerts. So we should place local regulations on national systems?


joblo said:


> This is the thing I find most bizarre about your posts, Greg. You're obviously very knowledgeable, you make a lot of good points, but you're all over the map. In one post you're extolling the virtues of "free markets", and in the next, government is your best friend.


Keep in mind that I am arguing on multiple fronts. Some arguments are pretty good; some are flat out ridiculous. I do not extol the virutes of the government being your best friend. I think if you want something truly messed up, involve the government. The market will sort itself out over time.


joblo said:


> What are you truly in favor of? How would YOU design the broadcast market, if it were up to you?


Now we're getting somewhere. In amongst this pile of posts, there may be one I posted that I can step in, again.

Let's make this how I'd design the broadcast market, to redefine revenue streams as it relates to the digital age.

Fox and CBS own affiliates that reach 35 percent of the households in the United States. They'd like to own more, except there is this little FCC rule that caps station ownership.

Second, with the amount of multicasting that can be done through digital broadcasting, I'd have the networks remove the HD feeds from their digital feeds. Instead, if I were the networks, I'd sell the HD feed to the cablers and the satellite companies, so they could be placed in an HD-style pack just like ESPNHD, DiscoveryHD, HDNet, etc. This action would provide: 1) a revenue stream from subscribers that want a better PQ; 2) the ability to sell different commercials to a separate target audience; and 3) free up the HD space from the local transmission to do something else.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

clapple said:


> It may be "private content"; but it is the publics air ways, they are using. Air ways that they were given!


They are not given. The broadcaster has to maintain a license which costs money in the form of maintaining a public inspection file, if nothing else. They must provide some public service content and are not allowed to exceed a limit on commercials in childrens programming time. Broadcasting at full power costs for utilities. program content costs money. Production costs money. You can be sure it is not a gift without substantial costs.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> I just can't fathom why some people (again no offense) on this board think this whole elimination of distants is so fair and good.


I once wondered that myself until this idea dawned on me: Just maybe some of the people here happen to be satellite/local TV/network insiders! As such they would certainly have an agenda to support. If so this is a perfect place to both hear their perspectives and share concerns of consumers/viewers. I don't know for sure but if I were a betting man, that would be where I'd put my money.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Interesting little thread but I have these questions:

1. Do network affiliates and/or the network o&o stations have a "problem" with distant viewers watching their feeds?

2. Would they mind distant viewers watching for a reasonable fee?

3. Are NAB meeting minutes on such questions available to the public and/or are they ever leaked?

Despite hearing jibjab about "forcing" stations who don't want you to watch their copyrighted feeds, I'm personally convienced they (distant station) either would welcome you as a a viewer or could care less. The issue IMHO is one's own local affiliate wants to own as many eyes as possible.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

News Junky said:


> Interesting little thread but I have these questions:
> 
> 1. Do network affiliates and/or the network o&o stations have a "problem" with distant viewers watching their feeds?
> 
> ...


Out of market viewers aren't worth much to ANY local station. Too many of the ads are for local products. So the networks who want to maintain national distribution would prefer you to watch local affiliates. So at best they are neural to it and really want to keep the affiliates happy. I suspect that if they ever did collect a fee it would be minimal and the affiliates would be upset---and how would we ever work out the details of sharing that with them?

As for NAB minutes good luck on that. Although they would make a good read at least on this subject.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

News Junky said:


> I'm personally convienced they (distant station) either would welcome you as a a viewer or could care less.


The distant station really has no say in the matter. If a satellite carrier wants to carry them as a distant it cannot be stopped (unless the carrier violates the law in how they deliver distants). There is a certain prestige when the station is known nationwide, but the distant viewers are not a large enough group to worry about.

The networks made an agreement with all of their affiliates granting them exclusive first run rights within their markets. Tear up those contracts and you might as well have 100% syndication with no networks - which would work for the shows people know are good (the richest station in each market would air only the best shows) but not so good for lesser known shows (which may never make it into your market).


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

News Junky said:


> ... The issue IMHO is one's own local affiliate wants to own as many eyes as possible.


Of course.

When the ratings numbers are determined, _more eyeballs_ translates to the ability to charge higher advertising rates. Potential customers who watch programming from a distant station don't benefit the local.

The distant station also doesn't benefit in the statistics since the customer would not be counted as one of its viewers. In effect, the distant viewer's habits go into a limbo and are not counted.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

AllieVi said:


> The distant station also doesn't benefit in the statistics since the customer would not be counted as one of its viewers. In effect, the distant viewer's habits go into a limbo and are not counted.


Except when it comes time for the provider to pay the mandatory copyright fee to the fund.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> The distant station really has no say in the matter.


I'm pretty sure this is not the case. I'd bet that there is something in the carriage agreements that prohibits the distributor (satellite company) from doing most anything that the station doesn't want. There are numerous rights at play when you seek to send something out of "market".


> If a satellite carrier wants to carry them as a distant it cannot be stopped (unless the carrier violates the law in how they deliver distants).


You mean like violating copyright? I've been caught by releases before that prohibited me from sharing programming outside a designated area. In this case, I suppose that both the station and the satellite company could be subject to litigation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

47CFR76.64 said:


> no multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of any commercial broadcasting station without the express authority of the originating station, except ... *A commercial broadcast signal may be retransmitted without express authority of the originating station if* ... *The distributor is a satellite carrier and the signal is transmitted directly to a home satellite antenna*, provided that: *The broadcast station is owned or operated by, or affiliated with a broadcasting network,* and *the household receiving the signal is an unserved household.*


No permission required to deliver distants to unserved households (as distant channels). If you are suggesting that a station would withhold it's consent to carry in it's local market to prevent or control how it is carried as a distant (the way Viacom tied consent to carry their broadcast stations to the deal to carry their cable stations) ... anything is possible when there is corporate greed.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

Geronimo said:


> Out of market viewers aren't worth much to ANY local station. Too many of the ads are for local products. So the networks who want to maintain national distribution would prefer you to watch local affiliates. So at best they are neural to it and really want to keep the affiliates happy. I suspect that if they ever did collect a fee it would be minimal and the affiliates would be upset---and how would we ever work out the details of sharing that with them?
> 
> As for NAB minutes good luck on that. Although they would make a good read at least on this subject.


More than 25% of Americans own two homes. New York University economics Professor Edward Wolff, a specialist in real estate statistics, said 4.48 percent of American households owned three or more residential properties in 1998. That is more Americans than Dish has as current subscibers. I am one of those Americans. I would definately like to watch the locals of each area I own homes. I am interested in their ads. I do have to maintain those homes and want to see local offering both when there and away. The lawmakers of the US better catch up with this trend. Look at the influence this trend had on the Florida vote count for President. It was not just Floridians who were voting. 40% of the Florida votes are actually winter Floridians who chose Florida as their residence to get cheeper car insurance, etc. Most live more in the north than in Florida. Many states only require 90 days to claim residency. Many of these winter Floridians, Arizonians, and Texans, etc. have one family member registered to vote in one state and the 2nd in the 2nd state. If lawmakers don't start reacting to their needs , they will vote them out. Remember, it is a US pattern that the concerned citizen is usually the voter.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Odbrv,

Exellent point and well stated.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

odbrv said:


> More than 25% of Americans own two homes...If lawmakers don't start reacting to their needs , they will vote them out. Remember, it is a US pattern that the concerned citizen is usually the voter.


I couldn't agree more. But, under these circumstances of affording two homes, having only one account, and wanting the best of all worlds, the politicians will encourage you to get a separate account for each home. Now if this is a special interest issue to the lawmakers especially those that have two or more homes in distant locations (maybe bumping your 25% figure to greater than 50% in their arena), there may be great accomplishments.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

boylehome said:


> But, under these circumstances of affording two homes, having only one account, and wanting the best of all worlds


I believe you misunderstood the op. I don't think he's asking to have just one account. He wants to have locals from both cities at both locations so that he can keep track of whats going on at the place he isn't currently staying.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

IowaStateFan said:


> I believe you misunderstood the op. I don't think he's asking to have just one account. He wants to have locals from both cities at both locations so that he can keep track of whats going on at the place he isn't currently staying.


I understood. What they will say is you can have it on another account and then use a Slingbox (or whatever new technology is available) to get one or the other at the same time. I strongly believe that it should be allowed. But if they allow it for a two home owner, why shouldn't the other 75% of the population enjoy the privilege even if they rent an apartment?


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

boylehome said:


> Now if this is a special interest issue to the lawmakers especially those that have two or more homes in distant locations (maybe bumping your 25% figure to greater than 50% in their arena), there may be great accomplishments.


In fact, you would think that 100% of our US House and Senate would want to watch TV from the areas they represent. At least to see the local news. The fact that they are not pushing for this possibility tells me that they are just not interested in their local areas as much as they are interested in NAB financing of their campaigns and the local Tv coverage that comes with it. 
I have sent e-mails to the Representatives and Senators of the 2 states I reside. So far 1 Senator has responded that he will look into it via the FCC. The other 5 have decided not to respond. My wife and I have decided not to respond to their future requests for funding or our votes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

odbrv said:


> In fact, you would think that 100% of our US House and Senate would want to watch TV from the areas they represent.


Most of them would have trouble getting a signal - even if they brought a satellite system to DC that had a service address at home the majority of local channels are on spotbeams and physically unavailable outside their region.

Congress finds out what is happening in their own districts in better ways than watching a newscast themselves. Some come home to their districts often, many are practically TV stars based on their own airtime on the news and then there are the offices in the districts that keep track of things that are important - even if they have made the news.

Every congress person who pushes for 'out of market' viewing rules has to answer to the station IN their market that they rely on to get re-elected. That's why it is only safe to push for something that their in market station wants or would accept - such as significantly viewed stations that cross market boundries. Chances are such rules would help their market's stations more than it would hurt. Opening up every station in the nation as competition for the local broacaster - not a good thing. (Even if it were physically possible.)


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

odbrv said:


> More than 25% of Americans own two homes. New York University economics Professor Edward Wolff, a specialist in real estate statistics, said 4.48 percent of American households owned three or more residential properties in 1998. That is more Americans than Dish has as current subscibers. I am one of those Americans. I would definately like to watch the locals of each area I own homes. I am interested in their ads. I do have to maintain those homes and want to see local offering both when there and away. The lawmakers of the US better catch up with this trend. Look at the influence this trend had on the Florida vote count for President. It was not just Floridians who were voting. 40% of the Florida votes are actually winter Floridians who chose Florida as their residence to get cheeper car insurance, etc. Most live more in the north than in Florida. Many states only require 90 days to claim residency. Many of these winter Floridians, Arizonians, and Texans, etc. have one family member registered to vote in one state and the 2nd in the 2nd state. If lawmakers don't start reacting to their needs , they will vote them out. Remember, it is a US pattern that the concerned citizen is usually the voter.


None of tis addresses the point that the locals bought exclusive broadcast rights in their area. we have no right to TV from any market.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

clapple said:


> It may be "private content"; but it is the publics air ways, they are using. Air ways that they were given!


You have the absolute right to receive that "free" signal OVER-THE-AIR no matter where you live.

A third party (D* or E*) has no rights to copy that signal for you and send it to your favorite destination where another party has paid for the rights to air that same program.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

boylehome said:


> I understood. What they will say is you can have it on another account and then use a Slingbox (or whatever new technology is available) to get one or the other at the same time. I strongly believe that it should be allowed. But if they allow it for a two home owner, why shouldn't the other 75% of the population enjoy the privilege even if they rent an apartment?


I don't think they can (or will) discriminate based on whether or not one has two homes. I agree with you and think everyone should be allowed to subscribe to out of market channels, but I don't see it happening anytime soon because each local channel wants to protect its own turf. Honestly, I see both sides of the issue. The locals have purchased exclusive rights to show network programming, and could lose significant revenue if people could purchase the same programming from another market. I also understand that there are many people that have compelling reasons for wanting to keep up with events in distant markets (such as the two home owner). Local television is a very good way to do that. I like you're slingbox solution. However, it would only work if you have a physical location with a separate account. It doesn't work for someone like my parents who own a home in Texas, but spend summers in Minnesota in their RV.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> I understood. What they will say is you can have it on another account and then use a Slingbox (or whatever new technology is available) to get one or the other at the same time. I strongly believe that it should be allowed. But if they allow it for a two home owner, why shouldn't the other 75% of the population enjoy the privilege even if they rent an apartment?


I agree totally. Excellent idea!



> Most of them would have trouble getting a signal - even if they brought a satellite system to DC that had a service address at home the majority of local channels are on spotbeams and physically unavailable outside their region.


Say want you want about spotbeams. I think the signals get out way farther than anyone in the know is willing to admit. I know of an alleged hacker who reportedly can get numerous DMS outside of their supposed spotbeam range. Of course, nobody here in the law abiding crowd knows for sure because we can't turn them on to see if they work out of the footprint. I also had an installer tell me he saw Kansas City locals on a relocating customer's TV set in Florida before he turned them off.



> Opening up every station in the nation as competition for the local broacaster - not a good thing. (Even if it were physically possible.)


What I think you're saying is the local stations in each market do such a dismal job that they wouldn't be able to keep their audiences if viewers had the choice to watch the same network station in another market. I cannot agree. Dude, don't fall for the hype! This is all about fear driven protectionism. HBO, MTV, CNN and 200 other channels didn't drive the once 10 local station monopoly (for lack of a more appropriate word) out of business. The New York Times being distributed nationally complete with the same AP stories, UPI photos and syndicated columns did not drive the Washington Post, Philadelphia Enquirer or Atlanta Journal-Constitution of out business. What you described IMHO will have the exact opposite affect than what the NAB and their proponents claim will happen. Local stations will be forced to get creative and offer true localism, a programming product with more in-depth and compelling local content than we are currently seeing that will make them distinct from other same network affiliates coming in from outside markets.

Here's some free advice for the NAB. Distant market network stations are not what you should be worrying about. You need to be having bloodcurdling nightmares over TiVo. Unlike the networks, you don't have the ability to embed commercials into the programming content and charge Coca-Cola millions of dollars a week for Paul Abdul to sip water for a Coke mug during American Idol. As more and more people, especially the advertisers themselves get into the habit of prerecording your "market exclusive" programming so that they can skip right past your income source, you will be forced to modify your business model. Your only hope over the long term will be to adopt one or more of the following:

1.	Start giving the viewers what they want and warm up to the concept of making stations available outside of your own DMA, for a distant market subscription premium. You might be a station in Winston-Salem but you get collect payments from viewers in Atlanta and Charlotte.

2.	Start creating more local programs that you can embed with ads featuring local advertisers. Creativity is key. You'll need to produce programs people in your city and maybe other cities will WANT to watch. Study what WGN did with local programming in the 70s and 80s to get ideas. With good booth talent local sports even at the collegiate level can make you some dough. The good thing about news and sports that is a "watch it now" type urgency to that programming that you don't have with movies, sitcoms and reality TV shows, thus TiVo shouldn't be a factor.

3.	I'm gonna get booed for this but you might be forced to run news ticker type ads on the bottom of the screen during network programs.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> The locals have purchased exclusive rights to show network programming,


No they haven't. Its a non-issue becuse they still have exclusive rights but just so you'll know, the local stations get the network programming for free or in some cases are paid by the network.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

News Junky said:


> No they haven't. Its a non-issue becuse they still have exclusive rights but just so you'll know, the local stations get the network programming for free or in some cases are paid by the network.


exellent point---purchased was a poor choice of wording at best and downright misleading at worst. But they do own these rights.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

News Junky said:


> Say want you want about spotbeams. I think the signals get out way farther than anyone in the know is willing to admit. I know of an alleged hacker who reportedly can get numerous DMS outside of their supposed spotbeam range. Of course, nobody here in the law abiding crowd knows for sure because we can't turn them on to see if they work out of the footprint. I also had an installer tell me he saw Kansas City locals on a relocating customer's TV set in Florida before he turned them off.


I suppose that may have been possible on older spotbeam birds such as E*7 and E*8, but I really doubt that you'd see such "loose" spotbeams on E*10 or anything new that we may see. There's too much reuse of bandwidth. To use your example and without looking up specific spotbeam transponder coverage, suppose transponder 29 is being used for the KC spotbeam. If it's being reused for Orlando, you better not see see the KC spot. Receivng two signals on the same frequency from the same orbital location could have "undesired" results. Actually, if memory serves, there are some areas that could see spotbeam footprint overlap where the same transponders are used for both spots hitting the same small geographic area. The provider has to be careful to be sure that they're not providing programming to the overlap area using either of the spotbeams.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

News Junky said:


> > Most of them would have trouble getting a signal - even if they brought a satellite system to DC that had a service address at home the majority of local channels are on spotbeams and physically unavailable outside their region.
> 
> 
> Say want you want about spotbeams. I think the signals get out way farther than anyone in the know is willing to admit. . . . I also had an installer tell me he saw Kansas City locals on a relocating customer's TV set in Florida before he turned them off.


That anecdote is probably dated before E10. There are a lot less markets on ConUS today than there were a couple of months ago. KC is now on 18s24. For that signal to reach Florida it would have to interfere with 18s15 and 18s6 and likely wipe out 18s13 and 18s23 as well.


News Junky said:


> > Opening up every station in the nation as competition for the local broacaster - not a good thing. (Even if it were physically possible.)
> 
> 
> What I think you're saying is the local stations in each market do such a dismal job that they wouldn't be able to keep their audiences if viewers had the choice to watch the same network station in another market.


That's not what I'm saying.

First, the customer desire to watch 'out of market TV' is limited. The strongest desire is from people who through the differences in cable vs DBS law is forbidden to receive channels via satellite that their local cable company is required to carry. Correcting the law to allow satellite broadcasters to carry those technically out of market channels would be a good thing. Opening it up to any channel from any market anywhere is less desired - and that is what I was saying would not be a good thing.

Say your local station QXBC is doing a lousy job and given a choice viewers would choose one of many out of region station (not just PXBC in the next market over that is available OTA or via cable, but ANY XBC affiliate). Should every XBC affilate start running public safety information for your market just to make sure you are properly informed? The station in the next market over is more likely to have at least regional information than some out of region station. And on a lesser scale, what station should people selling products and services in the QXBC area turn to to reach XBC network viewers? The next market over would be a good buy as people in that market might make the trip and the OTA/cable coverage of PXBC also reaches the target ... but 'any station in the nation'? That's a big buy for a small company.

'Any channel in the country' is excessive - and thanks to spotbeams really not an option. Neighboring stations are more possible, desired and likely to make it into law (especially considering that SV stations were supposed to be that fix the last time the law was modified - the intent was there but the law is flawed).


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

News Junky said:


> No they haven't. Its a non-issue becuse they still have exclusive rights but just so you'll know, the local stations get the network programming for free or in some cases are paid by the network.


Reverse compensation, in United States broadcasting, is the practice of a television station paying a television network in exchange for being permitted to affiliate with that network. The word "reverse" stems from the historical practice of networks paying stations to carry their programs, to compensate for the revenue that these stations would lose by carrying networked advertisements.

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


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> The reason OTA broadcasting exists is to promote localism, the Orwellian theory notwithstanding, although you cannot truly call the NAB "Big Brother" as it isn't government.


OTA broadcasting exists because it was technically possible. Networks exist because people wanted programming with New York/Hollywood production values and networks were the only way to deliver that prior to satellite, internet, etc.

And you missed the point about Orwell. I'm not saying the NAB is Big Brother. I'm saying the claim that network and syndicated exclusivity promotes localism is a lie.



> So, a "free market" is defined as the ability for two parties to come to an agreement without government oversight.


That's laissez-faire, very nineteenth century. We tried that; that's why we have antitrust laws.



> What's your definition? Where the consumer can buy anything they want, from anyone, and throw government regulations in to nullify exclusive arrangements?


I want a competitive market on a level playing field that responds to viewer demand.

The point of markets is to allocate resources according to consumer tastes and demands, rather than by centrally dictated fiat. So when there is a clear demand, such as there obviously is for out-of-market television, and the market doesn't respond to that demand, you have to ask: why not?

Thing is, competitive markets don't spring into being by magic. Like any competition, you have to first have some rules and regulations for them to operate under.

I mean, you couldn't just pick 18 people at random from anywhere in the world, throw them on a baseball diamond with some bats and gloves and a ball, and then retire to the stands expecting to see a baseball game, could you? Of course not. You'd have to create some rules, and you'd have to make sure everyone understood those rules. And then, on top of that, and depending on how serious you were, you might even want to throw an umpire or two on the field to judge the plays and enforce the rules.

The goal of a market system is not to have zero regulations. It's to make sure that those regulations do not introduce economic distortions. So things like price controls and quotas are generally bad, but anti-trust laws and other regulations that promote competition are generally good.



> But this is another of the free market paradigms. If a business does not provide a product you like, then don't consume as a consumer. Stop watching that Lynchburg ABC station. They should figure it out when ratings tank and everyone says they aren't watching because they don't broadcast stereo.


The problem with this is that the viewer is not really a consumer in the economic sense. Unless you are a Nielsen household, whether or not you watch a station has zero economic impact on the station.



> Let's make this how I'd design the broadcast market, to redefine revenue streams as it relates to the digital age.
> 
> Fox and CBS own affiliates that reach 35 percent of the households in the United States. They'd like to own more, except there is this little FCC rule that caps station ownership.
> 
> Second, with the amount of multicasting that can be done through digital broadcasting, I'd have the networks remove the HD feeds from their digital feeds. Instead, if I were the networks, I'd sell the HD feed to the cablers and the satellite companies, so they could be placed in an HD-style pack just like ESPNHD, DiscoveryHD, HDNet, etc. This action would provide: 1) a revenue stream from subscribers that want a better PQ; 2) the ability to sell different commercials to a separate target audience; and 3) free up the HD space from the local transmission to do something else.


Ok. So you'd remove the ownership cap, with the expectation that the networks would then buy all the stations and move HD off of the OTA channels. I think that might be marginally better than the current situation, but I don't know if I like the idea of eliminating all free HD. Would you mandate this change in HD delivery? If so, on what grounds?

As it happens, this is very similar to the current situation in Canada. The major broadcasting companies own nearly all the stations, and HD is distributed mainly via cable and satellite rather than OTA. Local flavor is already largely absent from Canadian stations, and the homogenizing trend continues. And in light of this, the CRTC has recently undertaken a study to determine whether terrestrial broadcasting should be discontinued altogether sometime in the next decade.

So I think your chances of the U.S. Congress removing the ownership caps are somewhere between zero and negative one. While I personally think an ownership cap without competition between markets is a bad idea, I think you have to pay homage to the localism mantra to have even a snowball's chance of effecting a change, which is why I propose keeping the caps but opening up the market to more competition, both within and between markets.

. . . .



harsh said:


> Given the rate of Amber Alerts and other emergency information across the entire area of satellite, there would be a constant, possibly stacked, crawl on all channels. Satellite isn't set up to do crawls at the individual receiver level.


First, amber alerts are primarily for people out and about in public who might actually see something, not for couch potatoes in their own living rooms. Second, who says the alert has to be a crawl? Delivering a zip-code targeted message via satellite is not that technically challenging. You could leverage mailboxes, blackout controls, guide data, etc. I'm sure there are many ways it could be done, if one wanted to do it.

But I'm advocating this at all. I hate seeing the weekly EAS test crawls on cable programming I've recorded, so it's certainly not something I'm advocating for DBS.



> Imagine the mess of the syndicators having to deal with each station as opposed to striking a single deal with a network?


Well, the syndication market seems to be flourishing, so I really don't think this is such a great problem. But to be clear, I don't draw a distinction between network and syndicated programming. I think exclusivity should be precluded as a condition of license for all programming produced out of market, both syndicated and networked.

. . . .



JohnH said:


> Why does a government "taking" of a private content not get any flack around here? That is what distant networks are.


Nothing is being taken. Nobody forces any content owner to broadcast content. If content owners don't like the broadcast rules, then let them pay the full freight for a private distribution channel.

For instance, I don't like the fact the SatelliteGuys.US places ads inside posts, so I don't post there. But if I know the policy and choose to post there, I cannot then accuse the owners of unfairly profiting from my words by selling ads.

EM spectrum is a publicly held commodity, and the public, acting through the government, sets the rules for its use. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect content owners to surrender some degree of ownership in exchange for essentially free use of a public communication channel.



> They are not given. The broadcaster has to maintain a license which costs money in the form of maintaining a public inspection file, if nothing else. They must provide some public service content and are not allowed to exceed a limit on commercials in childrens programming time. Broadcasting at full power costs for utilities. program content costs money. Production costs money. You can be sure it is not a gift without substantial costs.


Which does not make it any less of a gift.

If you receive an inheritance, gift, or prize, and it is subject to tax, it is still given, not purchased. And if you have to make further investments to realize a profit on your inheritance, gift, or prize, that still doesn't change the fact that you didn't pay market value for what you originally received.

Broadcasters do not pay market value for spectrum. That's the point.

. . . .



News Junky said:


> Say want you want about spotbeams. I think the signals get out way farther than anyone in the know is willing to admit. ...
> Of course, nobody here in the law abiding crowd knows for sure because we can't turn them on to see if they work out of the footprint.


Please stop this. There is no conspiracy regarding spotbeams, and it is not essential to decode a signal, either legally or illegally, to establish the limits of its propagation.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

James Long said:


> .
> 
> First, the customer desire to watch 'out of market TV' is limited. The strongest desire is from people who through the differences in cable vs DBS law is forbidden to receive channels via satellite that their local cable company is required to carry. Correcting the law to allow satellite broadcasters to carry those technically out of market channels would be a good thing. Opening it up to any channel from any market anywhere is less desired - and that is what I was saying would not be a good thing.


Actually, what I think is driving this is sports programming. Look at some of the other forums -- "movers" and the like are always trying to find a way to beat sports blackouts and carry their favorite teams with them wherever they live -- without paying for the sports packages the leagues and DBS/cable offer. I'm willing to bet that people wanting to watch news from other markets are actually few and far bteween. This is about sports.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FLWingNut said:


> Actually, what I think is driving this is sports programming. Look at some of the other forums -- "movers" and the like are always trying to find a way to beat sports blackouts and carry their favorite teams with them wherever they live -- without paying for the sports packages the leagues and DBS/cable offer. I'm willing to bet that people wanting to watch news from other markets are actually few and far bteween. This is about sports.


In general, when you are talking about moving for sports you're not talking OTA. You're talking about getting around the market rules that the RSNs follow by agreement with each other and the professional teames they carry, not the OTA/SV/distants rules put in place to *allow* satellite companies to carry locals.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

James Long said:


> In general, when you are talking about moving for sports you're not talking OTA. You're talking about getting around the market rules that the RSNs follow by agreement with each other and the professional teames they carry, not the OTA/SV/distants rules put in place to *allow* satellite companies to carry locals.


I understand that. But many sports teams are carried on OTA stations. If you could get the locals from any market, you'd get the games -- including the NFL, which is carried on CBS, NBC and FOX -- from that market, allowing you to get around buying the Sunday ticket or having to head to the sports bar. The same applies to other sports. RSNs aren't the only ones who carry sports. And if it were physically possible to get those out-of -market locals (assuming spotbeam problems were resolved), you could "move" to get the RSN you want, and PRESTO! You have all the teams you want without buying the out-of-market sports packages. I believe this is the main driving force behind all of this, and believe me, locals and sports leagues will fight this all the way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IF there ever were rules put in place that would allow 'any channel any market' out of market stations you can be assured that the blackout rules would be applied. Which means people would still need to "move" to get the channel.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

But for this to happen, the spotbeam problem would have to be solved. And if that happened, you'd see a rush of "movers," even more so than now. One reason we don't have more than we do is that most people understand that they can't physically get those out-of-market stations. If that restrcition was removed, all bets are off.

And are E* and D* going to have to keep track of all the sports on the hundreds of locals to make sure the blackouts are correctly applied? What a nightmare! 

What convinces me that this is all sports related is that it's the only explanation that makes sense. If it's out of market news you want, the internet has all you can handle. If it's time-shifting, there are VCRs and DVRs. And everybody's version of "Deal or No Deal" is the same.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> EM spectrum is a publicly held commodity, and the public, acting through the government, sets the rules for its use. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect content owners to surrender some degree of ownership in exchange for essentially free use of a public communication channel.


And in a nutshell, others including myself will disagree.

That's like me telling BMW that in order to use my (publicly held commodity) roads to deliver their product, they should give me a Z3.

Also, as DirecTV and Dish Network are both licensed by the FCC, using my (publicly held commodity) spectrum to deliver their product, should just simply give it to me for free.

I understand there are terms for use of the spectrum. And in NO case should copyrights be reduced just because of the method of broadcasting.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

joblo said:


> First, amber alerts are primarily for people out and about in public who might actually see something, not for couch potatoes in their own living rooms.


If you were missing a child, would you want to miss any opportunity to get the information out? I'd be that more people have televisions playing in their homes than they do broadcast radio.


> Second, who says the alert has to be a crawl? Delivering a zip-code targeted message via satellite is not that technically challenging. You could leverage mailboxes, blackout controls, guide data, etc. I'm sure there are many ways it could be done, if one wanted to do it.


It is technically quite challenging. The software to pull it off isn't there. The blackout technology puts up a standard art card ("board") as opposed to a custom text message. You don't want to visit pop-up messages either.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FLWingNut said:


> But for this to happen, the spotbeam problem would have to be solved.


First of all, what makes it a problem? Spotbeams are a SOLUTION to having a limited amount of bandwidth for downlinking channels. E* has only 50 transponders at 119-110, D* has only 46 at 101-110-119. If it were not for spotbeams there would be a lot less local markets available. Having 129 available helps E* a little and SuperDishes helped for a while (although FSS has it's own issues). Spotbeams take a standard dish and make it useful nationwide.

I don't expect the spotbeam "solution" to go away just so a very small group of people can watch 'any channel any market'.


FLWingNut said:


> What convinces me that this is all sports related is that it's the only explanation that makes sense. If it's out of market news you want, the internet has all you can handle. If it's time-shifting, there are VCRs and DVRs. And everybody's version of "Deal or No Deal" is the same.


There are markets with affiliates who do not carry the full network schedule or prempt programming for local content enough that their viewers desire another source. An out of market option serves them. For west coasters 'time shifting' takes on a new meaning when one can watch a program three hours early (and perhaps catch a surprise ending before your neighbors and at the same time as the east coasters).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The software to pull it off isn't there.


Not yet. It isn't an impossibility - the ability to have a 24/7 datastream on every transponder is there. Just adding another low bandwidth stream with the NWS EAS messages would be helpful. In my state the NWS is working with the state police to distribute Amber Alerts via their network ... it is not an impossible task.

Popups would be a good way of doing it. The technology is there for doing text over video at the receiver as well. And with the receiver doing the text over it would not have to appear on replays. So if a receiver generated crawl interrupts your favorite show on your 622 just rewind and watch the segment again. Better than broadcast TV.

It could even be set up to alert while watching DVR's events. For the sake of those who are 'dubbing' their DVR events to another medium it would be good to be able to turn the alerts off --- but for most users getting up to the minute information would be good.

Congress has required cable systems to install interrupt devices on all of their channels. I wonder how far behind rules requiring satellite to do the same really are.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> And in NO case should copyrights be reduced just because of the method of broadcasting.


Why? What makes current levels of copyright protection sacrosanct, whatever they may be? And what was the Betamax decision, if not a reduction in copyright protection?

Contrary to what many seem to think, the purpose of copyright is not to make people rich or create some new class of IP elites analogous to the landed gentry. Copyrights are supposed to be an incentive to the creation of artistic works, for the betterment of society as a whole. If the actual rules as implemented do not produce desired results, revisions are certainly in order.

. . .



harsh said:


> If you were missing a child, would you want to miss any opportunity to get the information out?


Ok, look, missing a child is a terrible thing, and I don't mean to be insensitive.

But honestly, if you clutter up my TV viewing with pictures of missing children on a regular basis, you're just going to force me into the DVD market exclusively.



James Long said:


> Popups would be a good way of doing it.
> &#8230;
> it would be good to be able to turn the alerts off


See previous comment.

One of the reasons I'm actually less bothered by the E* decision than I might have been a few years ago is that the level of lower thirds and other "noise" on network TV has reached such levels that I already consider it barely watchable. HD and some Canadian channels are still less cluttered, but I don't expect that to last. If present trends continue, in another five years, I doubt I'll be watching entertainment programming on network TV at all.

. . .



FLWingNut said:


> "movers" and the like are always trying to find a way to beat sports blackouts and carry their favorite teams with them wherever they live -- without paying for the sports packages the leagues and DBS/cable offer.


Of course, because sports packages are yet another way the industry tries to force consumers to buy more programming than they really want in order to get the programming that they do want.

I find it objectionable that RSNs have been shifted down into basic cable and satellite tiers, so that in order to get news and other programming I want, I have to subsidize sports teams I don't care about and never watch. But if I have to subsidize other people's sports addictions, it hardly seems unreasonable to want to choose which teams I subsidize.



> And are E* and D* going to have to keep track of all the sports on the hundreds of locals to make sure the blackouts are correctly applied? What a nightmare!


This is overstated. Sports programming has already largely shifted from local OTA to RSNs and other cable nets, and that trend is continuing. Exisiting blackout technology can handle what's left.



> What convinces me that this is all sports related is that it's the only explanation that makes sense. If it's out of market news you want, the internet has all you can handle. If it's time-shifting, there are VCRs and DVRs. And everybody's version of "Deal or No Deal" is the same.


The internet lacks the couch potato convenience of TV and a remote control. It's not the same experience. I have ten DVRs (at last count) and I still have network TV from eight markets. And except for the NFL in the fall, I don't care about sports.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

FLWingNut said:


> Actually, what I think is driving this is sports programming.


Absolutely, though from a different POV. I want to be able to watch network programming from a time zone that I can be reasonably certain the schedule will be followed. There's no way to set a timer for "whenever the game happens to end." And the local WB pre-empts their best night (Smallville/Supernatural) for baseball :nono: and the delayed broadcast is SD only. That kind of localism I can do without.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

BobaBird said:


> Absolutely, though from a different POV. I want to be able to watch network programming from a time zone that I can be reasonably certain the schedule will be followed. There's no way to set a timer for "whenever the game happens to end." And the local WB pre-empts their best night (Smallville/Supernatural) for baseball :nono: and the delayed broadcast is SD only. That kind of localism I can do without.


There are other solutions to that (totally valid and understandable) complaint.
We need a DVR with an "always-on" internet (broadband, preferably) connection, and a service that instantly updates the guide data in real-time.
Of course, this would require that the stations themselves keep this data in real-time, so that may be a bit of a stretch.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

joblo said:


> I have ten DVRs (at last count) and I still have network TV from eight markets. And except for the NFL in the fall, I don't care about sports.


Me thinks you watcheth too much TV.:lol:


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

James Long said:


> First of all, what makes it a problem? Spotbeams are a SOLUTION to having a limited amount of bandwidth for downlinking channels. E* has only 50 transponders at 119-110, D* has only 46 at 101-110-119. If it were not for spotbeams there would be a lot less local markets available. Having 129 available helps E* a little and SuperDishes helped for a while (although FSS has it's own issues). Spotbeams take a standard dish and make it useful nationwide.
> 
> I don't expect the spotbeam "solution" to go away just so a very small group of people can watch 'any channel any market'.There are markets with affiliates who do not carry the full network schedule or prempt programming for local content enough that their viewers desire another source. An out of market option serves them. For west coasters 'time shifting' takes on a new meaning when one can watch a program three hours early (and perhaps catch a surprise ending before your neighbors and at the same time as the east coasters).


What I meant was that for an "any-station-from-any-market" system to come into play, you'd have to solve the problem of making those stations available nationally. Right now the use of spotbeams makes it impossible for a subscriber in Philly to watch locals from Tuscon. There just isn't enough bandwidth for an "any station" situation. At any rate, there are more pressing uses for available bandwidth, and "any station" seems like it should be a low priority for using it.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> Why? What makes current levels of copyright protection sacrosanct, whatever they may be? And what was the Betamax decision, if not a reduction in copyright protection?
> 
> Contrary to what many seem to think, the purpose of copyright is not to make people rich or create some new class of IP elites analogous to the landed gentry. Copyrights are supposed to be an incentive to the creation of artistic works, for the betterment of society as a whole. If the actual rules as implemented do not produce desired results, revisions are certainly in order.


The Betamax decision is a judicial review. The decision was handed down from the Supreme Court as an interpretation of what "fair-use" meant. The Betamax decision was not completed as an act of Congress signed by the President.

And keep this in mind: the idea of reducing the rights on copyright simply because the work is sent over the air is not a "narrow" definition. A narrow definition would be, say, to:

Exempt copyright so that the transmission of a local channel is allowed, but only back into its own market, provided there is a carriage contract.

And that is the SHVIA. The rights mirror how the copyright holder has sold license for their product.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> Actually, what I think is driving this is sports programming. Look at some of the other forums -- "movers" and the like are always trying to find a way to beat sports blackouts and carry their favorite teams with them wherever they live -- without paying for the sports packages the leagues and DBS/cable offer. I'm willing to bet that people wanting to watch news from other markets are actually few and far bteween. This is about sports.


I am looking for equality of signal and service. It took more than a year for my locals to be available in Sd as compared to larger markets. When they did become available the PQ is not as good as the distants. In fact , the picture quality is so bad I tend to watch distants except for local original programming such as news and college sports. It will probably be longer for them to be available in HD. Until my areas locals can put out a similar signal and in HD as the larger markets , I should be given a discount on my bill or the right to see what most other E* customers get in the larger markets. 
To be fair no locals should be available in HD until all locals are. Even I know that is stupid and is already impossible as more large area locals come on line in HD. However, to let me watch a close area's HD locals or national network's HD until mine are available would be fair.
I hope the court in Atlanta takes my problem into condideration before they shut down all distant networks. I hope equality still means something in the USA.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

odbrv said:


> I am looking for equality of signal and service. It took more than a year for my locals to be available in Sd as compared to larger markets. When they did become available the PQ is not as good as the distants. In fact , the picture quality is so bad I tend to watch distants except for local original programming such as news and college sports. It will probably be longer for them to be available in HD. Until my areas locals can put out a similar signal and in HD as the larger markets , I should be given a discount on my bill or the right to see what most other E* customers get in the larger markets.
> To be fair no locals should be available in HD until all locals are. Even I know that is stupid and is already impossible as more large area locals come on line in HD. However, to let me watch a close area's HD locals or national network's HD until mine are available would be fair.
> I hope the court in Atlanta takes my problem into condideration before they shut down all distant networks. I hope equality still means something in the USA.


But once again, the placement of blame here is directed to the wrong party.

The laws give the satellite companies the right to "pick and choose" markets. And if the gathering of signals and their quality is an issue, then the problem is with the actual gathering by the satellite companies.

If you don't like the signal you are getting from Dish Network, call Dish Network on it. If you don't think Dish Network is being responsive, call the local affiliates to see if they can put pressure on Dish Network. If it is still an issue, check for other options.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Hey guys check it out, you can get out of town KNBC-DT's live webcast local news feed!

The website is located at ...... www.nbc4.tv/videostream/9139590/detail.html

They just got on the air on their digital sub channel 4.4 and webcasting at the sametime yesterday.

I will find out if their sister station in NYC WNBC-DT is also doing the same thing.

6-20-06


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Please stop this. There is no conspiracy regarding spotbeams, and it is not essential to decode a signal, either legally or illegally, to establish the limits of its propagation.


I'm so sorry and never meant to upset anyone. I was just expressing a personal opinion of not being "totally conveinced" on the stated range of spotbeams. This based on information given to me by people I've met face to face whho work with the technology and who have no agenda either way coupled with a strong ("strong" being too weak of a word but the best one I can think of) anti-DNS culture in the industry.



> Hey guys check it out, you can get out of town KNBC-DT's live webcast local news feed!


Great info. Thanks


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> But once again, the placement of blame here is directed to the wrong party.
> 
> The laws give the satellite companies the right to "pick and choose" markets. And if the gathering of signals and their quality is an issue, then the problem is with the actual gathering by the satellite companies.
> 
> If you don't like the signal you are getting from Dish Network, call Dish Network on it. If you don't think Dish Network is being responsive, call the local affiliates to see if they can put pressure on Dish Network. If it is still an issue, check for other options.


E* is blamming the locals. How the locals send E* their signal is out of E*'s control. The large markets and distant networks use optical or other high tech means. The smaller locals use inferior retransmission equipment. The result is an inequality in signal and service among E* customers that they have no control over. As long as I still receive distant networks ,I get back to equality. If the court in Atlanta kills E*'s ability to sell me distants without requiring my locals to improve their signal I go back to inequality. 
You keep trying to play a blame game. I just want equlity regardless of blame. So far E* has given me a means to equality. As far as I see it , my locals are not and the court will not either. So, E* has treated me right , the other two have not. That is the message I am sending the FCC and my Representatives in Washington.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

odbrv said:


> I just want equlity


I'm just kind of curious where you got the idea that somehow you have the "right " to equal television broadcasting quality? When you decide where you want to live every location has it's ups and downs. One of these is that some areas have better quality local broadcasting than others. If it's that important to you, you do have the right to move to one of those areas. Or if there are other factors that are more important to you that keep you in your current location then you should get used to the idea that one of the drawbacks to where you do live is that the local broadcast quality isn't what it is in other places. Seriously if you think that you can make everything equal in every location you're setting yourself up for disappointment.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Running with tsmacro on this:


odbrv said:


> E* is blamming the locals. How the locals send E* their signal is out of E*'s control. The large markets and distant networks use optical or other high tech means. The smaller locals use inferior retransmission equipment. The result is an inequality in signal and service among E* customers that they have no control over. As long as I still receive distant networks ,I get back to equality. If the court in Atlanta kills E*'s ability to sell me distants without requiring my locals to improve their signal I go back to inequality.
> You keep trying to play a blame game. I just want equlity regardless of blame. So far E* has given me a means to equality. As far as I see it , my locals are not and the court will not either. So, E* has treated me right , the other two have not. That is the message I am sending the FCC and my Representatives in Washington.


Uh, if Dish Network has a contract, which they do, Dish Network could "force" the locals to feed via fibre, or any other method, *if they cared*. That is the point.

If you want equality, you yourself are perpetuating a blame game. If Dish Network can make the distant locals look better than your locals, then something is awry. You are simply blaming the locals because Dish Network "is blamming the locals".


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Running with tsmacro on this:Uh, if Dish Network has a contract, which they do, Dish Network could "force" the locals to feed via fibre, or any other method, *if they cared*. That is the point.".


The locals are not required to give E* service. If E* requires them to give a better signal , they simply refuse. Since there is no competition due to current monopolistic rules and regulations, E* has no other locals to get signal and we get no locals. Given the current court decision , we would then lose distant networks and have no networks. So , If we wish to have networks,we have to pay the same fees for poorer service.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> I'm just kind of curious where you got the idea that somehow you have the "right " to equal television broadcasting quality? When you decide where you want to live every location has it's ups and downs. One of these is that some areas have better quality local broadcasting than others. If it's that important to you, you do have the right to move to one of those areas. Or if there are other factors that are more important to you that keep you in your current location then you should get used to the idea that one of the drawbacks to where you do live is that the local broadcast quality isn't what it is in other places. Seriously if you think that you can make everything equal in every location you're setting yourself up for disappointment.


Have you forgotten how Satellite delivered tv came to be. It was established to deliver signal to those who could not get local or cable delivery of TV. Just like the rural electification act and the rural telephone act , it was established to equalize tv service to rural america. In fact , all of you who get E* or D* and have access to cable and/or over the air delivery of TV are newcomers and were at one time the illegal recipients of satellite tv. A lot of rules and regulations had to be put in to allow you to get satellite delivered tv. They just didn't get written very well and the initial recipients of Satellite tv , the rural customer, got the raw end of the deal. 
"Direct to Home (DTH) satellite receivers were developed in the early 1980's. Rural areas thus gained the capacity to receive television programming that was not capable of being received by standard methods. With the development of television receive only (TVRO), broadcasters began to complain that reception of their signals were being either received illegally or pirated. The position of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was governed by its "open skies' policy. It was the FCC's position that users had as much right to receive satellite signals as broadcasters had the right to transmit them." From the FCC history of satellite Tv. Boy how things have changed.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

odbrv said:


> The locals are not required to give E* service. If E* requires them to give a better signal , they simply refuse. Since there is no competition due to current monopolistic rules and regulations, E* has no other locals to get signal and we get no locals. Given the current court decision , we would then lose distant networks and have no networks. So , If we wish to have networks,we have to pay the same fees for poorer service.


Let's say I am running into the same problem here. My NBC feed from Baltimore on DirecTV is horrible. I suspect it has something to do with the overcompression of locals on the spot-beam transponder, as well as the fact the signal is being picked up at the receive center by antenna. I am trying to work this one out.

And let's not forget, Dish Network is culpable. When the burden of proof of qualifying your customers rests with your company, and the company provides no qualifying customers to the courts, your company is asking for trouble.


odbrv said:


> "Direct to Home (DTH) satellite receivers were developed in the early 1980's. Rural areas thus gained the capacity to receive television programming that was not capable of being received by standard methods. With the development of television receive only (TVRO), broadcasters began to complain that reception of their signals were being either received illegally or pirated. The position of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was governed by its "open skies' policy. It was the FCC's position that users had as much right to receive satellite signals as broadcasters had the right to transmit them." From the FCC history of satellite Tv. Boy how things have changed.


Do you know what is missing from this? The fact that the content providers (HBO, ESPN, etc.) started to scramble their feeds via satellite. When the networks were about to start scrambling their feeds, we ended up with the rules for the distant network service.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

odbrv said:


> Have you forgotten how Satellite delivered tv came to be?


No I haven't forgotten anything. But I don't see how any of that translates into anyone having the "right" to equal quality tv broadcasts. Now i'm one of those that think we ought to have the ability to get access to local stations no matter where they originate from or where you are. However I also realize that's not how things are now. All we can do is complain and maybe if enough of us do some enterprising soul out there will realize the market for it and find a way to profit from it because until then not much will change. Eventually it'll happen one way or another, but it won't be because of a campaign to grant equal access to high quality local broadcasts to all, it'll because someone has found a way to make a profit doing it.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> Eventually it'll happen one way or another, but it won't be because of a campaign to grant equal access to high quality local broadcasts to all, it'll because someone has found a way to make a profit doing it.


Sorry, but this is naïve.

Out-of-market delivery will never be profitable unless the rules and regulations are changed to create a viewer-driven market.

The basic problem with the current market is that viewers are the product, not the consumer. So expecting that market to respond to viewer tastes is a little like expecting farms to be run according the preferences of the cattle. I mean, surely most male cattle would prefer to live their lives as bulls rather than steers, right? And yet, for some strange reason, the "free market" produces mostly steers and only a few bulls. And surely those bulls would like to, um, "visit", all the cows they can see, right? And yet, the market system fences them in and restricts their access. Oh sure, some bulls "moove" (sorry, couldn't resist ) over fences to get more cows, but this is highly frowned on, and all the good bulls call it "stealing"&#8230;&#8230;

The point is, if you want a market that responds to viewer tastes and preferences, you've got to create that market. As it stands, *there is no competition whatsoever between broadcasters for viewer dollars, even within markets, let alone between markets.*

Suppose, for instance, you want that tax-supported, must-carry PBS station that you can't get OTA because they don't have enough money to transmit with the same power as the local commercial stations. So you turn to cable or satellite. But you can't just buy the PBS station. It comes bundled with every other local station, including those that charge retrans consent fees for carriage, so in effect, you have to pay your local ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC stations to see your PBS and other weaker stations. Now that's what I call STEALING.

If you truly want viewer-desired services that to be profitable, you must change the laws to create competition, both within and between markets. That means mandating a la carte delivery, especially for retrans consent stations (if you insist on keeping retrans consent, which I think is wrong to start with), and it means ending local exclusivity for out-of-market originated content as a condition of license for local terrestrial broadcasters.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> The basic problem with the current market is that viewers are the product, not the consumer. So expecting that market to respond to viewer tastes is a little like expecting farms to be run according the preferences of the cattle. I mean, surely most male cattle would prefer to live their lives as bulls rather than steers, right? And yet, for some strange reason, the "free market" produces mostly steers and only a few bulls. And surely those bulls would like to, um, "visit", all the cows they can see, right? And yet, the market system fences them in and restricts their access. Oh sure, some bulls "moove" (sorry, couldn't resist ) over fences to get more cows, but this is highly frowned on, and all the good bulls call it "stealing"&#8230;&#8230;


This is a very, very good point. I never looked at it that way but you are absolutely right. In response, I for one don't like being a "product" especially when I pay over $1,000.00 a year to DirecTV for the privelege. You're an iron pumping muscleman! Great observation.



> Out-of-market delivery will never be profitable unless the rules and regulations are changed to create a viewer-driven market.


That is unless an out of market market is created who pay a subcription fee and delivery premium as opposed to an being advertiser supported market.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> The point is, if you want a market that responds to viewer tastes and preferences, you've got to create that market. As it stands, *there is no competition whatsoever between broadcasters for viewer dollars, even within markets, let alone between markets.*


Yes, but as it stands, there is no direct exchange of money between any broadcaster, either OTA or pay channel (which I will call content distributor), and the viewer in the pay-TV world, so your point is somewhat moot.

The content distributors sell their carriage to multichannel platforms (cable, DirecTV, Dish Network), which in turn sell to the viewer. The content distributors program their channels to drive viewership, and the relationship between viewership and revenue is the amount of money that can be charged to both advertisers and multichannel platforms.

The viewer is indirect in this setup, and always has been.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, but as it stands, there is no direct exchange of money


Direct exchange of money is irrelevant.

If you buy a burger from your local McDonalds, the money goes first to the franchisee, not directly to the corporation. But what if there were a law requiring you to match your local McDonalds purchases with an equal number of burger purchases at the local Burger King, Wendy's, Carl's Jr., Hardees, Arby's, and so on. Would that make sense?

Dollars in the market system serve the same function as votes in the political system. Bundling all of the products together and asking people to take all or none is like asking people to vote YES or NO on a single slate of political candidates. It defeats the whole point of the system.



> The content distributors program their channels to drive viewership


Actually, in today's fractionated market, overall viewership is far less of a driving factor than it once was. Advertisers target primarily certain desirable demographics, with the effect that the tastes and preferences of viewers outside those demographics become all but irrelevant.



> The viewer is indirect in this setup, and always has been.


So then it's long overdue for a change, isn't it?

The current system made sense and functioned reasonably well in the 1950s. But today? Not so much.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> Direct exchange of money is irrelevant.
> 
> If you buy a burger from your local McDonalds, the money goes first to the franchisee, not directly to the corporation. But what if there were a law requiring you to match your local McDonalds purchases with an equal number of burger purchases at the local Burger King, Wendy's, Carl's Jr., Hardees, Arby's, and so on. Would that make sense?


But this goes back to the core of a couple of separate arguments.

The law that ties the local channels together is the one that exempts copyright for local-into-local. In other words, if the broadcast channel and the distributor can clear copyrights, they don't need to use the local-into-local provision of the SHVERA. That would allow the station to be sold separately.

Keep in mind also that this is "localism" at its finest. And no, I don't particularly like the law.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> The law that ties the local channels together is the one that exempts copyright for local-into-local.


Actually, I think the only requirement of the law is that channels be sold at price parity, which bundling certianly accomplishes. But historically, it was
technologically difficult if not impossible to do otherwise, so it seems natural to the public to do it that way, and besides, the industry is opposed to a la carte in general because they don't want to compete for viewer dollars.



> In other words, if the broadcast channel and the distributor can clear copyrights, they don't need to use the local-into-local provision of the SHVERA. That would allow the station to be sold separately.


you're missing (ignoring?) the point. It's not the retrans consent station that loses with price parity and/or bundling. It's the must-carry station, which lacks the viewer demand to extract a retrans consent fee, but at the same time loses what should be the extra distribution benefits (and hence additional sponsor and/or viewer suupport) that should be associated with a cheaper (i.e. genuinely "free") product and/or service.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

joblo said:


> Sorry, but this is naïve.
> 
> Out-of-market delivery will never be profitable unless the rules and regulations are changed to create a viewer-driven market.
> 
> If you truly want viewer-desired services that to be profitable, you must change the laws to create competition, both within and between markets. That means mandating a la carte delivery, especially for retrans consent stations (if you insist on keeping retrans consent, which I think is wrong to start with), and it means ending local exclusivity for out-of-market originated content as a condition of license for local terrestrial broadcasters.


See now i'm thinking maybe you're a bit naive here (no offense intended) and here's why. I don't think you'll be able get the laws changed without the financial pressure of companies who are profiting by doing it already. Because the way the system is set up there's a huge money driven lobbyist machine to keep it just the way it is. So what you need to have happen first is for companies to start offering ways around the current system through "loopholes" in the rules, sort of like the way Dish was "not bothering to notice" those who have "moved". Now as these things happen the big bad money machine that is the NAB fires up it's teams of lobbyists and lawyers to make the rule breakers "behave". Now everytime something like that happens you get more people who realize that it's possible to get those distants and liked having them so they're unhappy so maybe some of them do complain to congress and the fcc (not nearly enough) but what more of them do is look for other ways to get what they want. So they start looking to the internet where more local stations are offering their local broadcasts and Networks are starting to offer their shows for download. They also start buying devices like the Slingbox and so on. Like I said it will happen, because it's already happening. But the only way the rules are going to get changed is because of money and companies having money to buy influence in congress and via them the fcc. And this money will either come from companies offering new ways of getting the people what they want or the old guard (NAB) will eventually realize that their strategy of trying to snuff out all competition to their antiquated distribution system for national programming isn't cost effective and they'll embrace the new technology in ways that are profitable to them, or at least not costing them as much as fighting the tide moving against them. I think it's rather naive to believe that the rules are going to change without the clout of the money, lobbyists and lawyers to change them. Think of the music business and how they fought downloading music for so long before they finally embraced it and found a way to make money off of it. Rules don't generally get changed because of a handful of people wanting things to be more fair or competitive are rising up. Rules get changed because people are spending their money to get what they want and rules follow the way the money is rolling.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

odbrv said:


> Just received a formal letter from US Senator Cornyn of Texas in response to my e-mail published above in this thread. He has contacted the appropriate officials at the FCC to review why Texans will be losing network broadcasts. He says he will let me know when he gets a reply.
> So please start the writing campaign to your Congressman and Senators. The FCC might not listen directly to us. However, if they get enough complaints from the US Congress, who fund them. They might start a review. One quick solution would be to allow Distant Network HD. It might help push their( Congress and the FCC) desire to have HD be the tv standard.


Just received a response to my initial e-mail to my Senator. It has a letter from the FCC and the complete ruling of the Court of Appeals. On page 6 of the rulings it defines 5 categories to be an 'unserved household" under SHVIA. I satisfy 2,3,and 5. Only one is needed to qualify. On page 20 the court takes all grandfathering based on October , 1999 away. You need to use current strength of signal. It does not take waivers away, yet it still says to shut down all E* distants and if a subscriber has waivers they can go to another satellite provider( see footnote 21). I have asked my senator to intercede again. The move to D* would cost thousands of dollars. I should be subsidized by E* to do this. Yet the court found E* was now doing a good job in qualifying customers and should not be found engaged in a " pattern of practice" of violations. Again, the big corporation get by free of charge and the little guy gets screwed. The ruling also talked about shutting down the distants that were part of the suit. However, the FCC letter said ABC and NBC had dropped out of the suit and E* has an agreement with CBS. Does this mean the only distants to be shut down is FOX? UPN, WB and PBS were not part of the suit either. The Satellite guy's forum has 40 pages on this topic. There are many opinions. I guess we won't know much until E* appeal is done. Let's hope it takes as long to rule on the appeal. The original civil action was filed in 2000. The ruling was 6-10-2003. The appeal was filed prior to the 9-22-2003 deadline for shutting off ineligible subscribers. The next ruling was 5-23-2006. Given this time frame , it will be 2009 before the next ruling. By that time E* should have up all locals in HD.


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

Just wondering how important it is to have locals at all? Might I suggest a nationwide boycott, demanding the networks support repeal of the law? Especially as it pertains to those who cannot receive their locals via OTA.

I find I watch less network programming each new season, as more favotite programs are retired and replaced with what I consider to be crap.


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

About your quote odbrv, I find that most troubling. If you have waivers you can use them on Direct TV but not Dish? That is so.....XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

restart88 said:


> About your quote odbrv, I find that most troubling. If you have waivers you can use them on Direct TV but not Dish? That is so.....XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.


That is because E* made this court so upset. Reading the ruling; it says that E* showed no proof that any of its customers had valid waivers. They received mine via fax. So they either don't keep copies, thought this court case was trivial, or just didn't care about this whole issue. I think they have agreements with CBS,NBC,ABC, and CW for HD distants and will have this all in place prior to the date they will have to shut off SD distants. It will be another marketing plus to get all their customers to buy HD packages and equipment.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

restart88 said:


> Just wondering how important it is to have locals at all?


Because that's where the programming that everyone has access to is. While a lot of it is not very good, there are individual shows that are clearly capturing audience.

How are you supposed to keep up with the water cooler conversation if you aren't at least noddingly familiar with the shows that everyone is talking about?


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> That is because E* made this court so upset. Reading the ruling; it says that E* showed no proof that any of its customers had valid waivers.


That's so interesting. I'd be a DISH customer today if they'd accepted my waivers. Instead they were very strict and repeatedly at every level of escalation denied my getting DNS service on little insignificant details, IMHO, despite having letters from my network affiliates. Finally, I just went back to DirecTV before the reconnect grace period expired, who BTW refused to honor them again despite still being within their own statue of limitations guidelines.

The best way to look at this is OUR local affiliates OWN the network programs in our respective communities. The networks don't own the programs, the satellite subscription services don't own the programs and we don't own the programs. Whoever owns the product makes the rules on how they wish to market that product. I personally wish they would do it differently to allow for the best picture quality, redundant feed times and access to the local programming from other markets but they don't want to offer that. It's a little frustrating because I know its all technically feasible with today's satellite technology. I'm sure it would be profitable too. They keep touting the whole "free TV" concept where unlike in the UK people pay $250 a year for a network programs license and we don't pay anything. However they forget to consider 80% of the American public is already willing to pay for 4 times as much to cable and satellite companies for service that research has shown local network TV is some of the most if not the most important programming they see their subscription dollars going to fund and many would be willing to pay more for the enhanced options I mentioned. Out of touch? Yes, but its their call, not mine.


----------

