# Dish sues FCC over PBS-HD requirement



## HarveyLA

UPDATE: DISH SUING FCC OVER THIS PROVISION: SEE POSTING BELOW
____________________________________________________________
A little noticed provision of the recently passed STELA satellite bill allows a 60 day window for Dish to reach a private agreement on carrying noncommercial stations in HD. Dish has been negotiating with the stations' parent body APTS for years, and is the only major carrier of any sort without an agreement.
As of this writing, the first 30 days has elapsed since the bill took effect. If no agreement is reached on or about July 26, the STELA provisions will take effect, accelerating the previous FCC mandated schedule. 
Dish will be required to provide noncom HD locals in 50% of its markets by December 31, 2010, and the remaining 50% by December 31, 2011.

APTS issued this statement on May 28, the day after the president signed the bill. : _"APTS has worked for several years to try to reach a private carriage negotiation with DISH Network, but unfortunately we have been unable to arrive at an agreement to date. While we will continue to try to negotiate with DISH, this legislation provides critical assurances that the American public will have access to the highest quality local public television services in the event that no such agreement can be reached." 
_

Following enactment of STELA, Dish issued a glowing press release, praising other unrelated provisions of the bill, but didn't mention PBS HD at all.


----------



## Jim5506

This provision's unintended consequences are that Dish has slowed adding new DMA's in HD.

If they carry one station in HD they must carry all by those deadlines, if they carry none, the deadline does not apply.

The way congress is throwing away money, they should have just funded PBS a wad and ordered Dish to carry them all free, or shut PBS down totally - if it can't support itself in the free market, it is not worth the wasted money.


----------



## HarveyLA

Well, I guess this answers the question as to whether Dish will reach a private agreement with the stations! In a letter to Congress late last year, Dish said an accelerated timetable for carrying noncommercial stations in HD might be unconstitutional. Congress went ahead and passed the STELA bill with the timetable. The law is worded so as to correct "discrimination" against the noncommercial stations. Dish, on the other hand, argues its constitutional rights are being violated.

Partial quote from Las Vegas Sun 7/1/10

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/01/dish-network-files-suit-las-vegas-against-fcc-bloc/

_Satellite TV company DISH Network Corp. sued the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in a bid to block enforcement of a law requiring it to carry the high definition programming of public television stations around the country.

DISH Network, based in Englewood, Colo., filed the suit in Las Vegas in U.S. District Court for Nevada, where the company is incorporated.

Attorneys for DISH Network sought in the suit a restraining order and injunction blocking enforcement of the law, called the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, which was signed into law on May 27.

DISH Network claims the law violates its constitutional rights by putting the government in the position of deciding what channels it will offer subscribers.

"The 'PBS HD Mandate' is designed to coerce DISH into giving preferential treatment to programming that the government prefers, rather than leaving DISH to decide for itself how best to serve its subscribers with the programming choices that they want," the lawsuit charges. "Until this law was enacted, DISH was largely free to decide which local stations it would offer in high-definition, or 'HD,' format, which uses triple the bandwidth of a standard-definition format.

"DISH has traditionally exercised that editorial discretion to determine how to use its limited satellite bandwidth based upon its assessment of consumer demand. Congress has now stepped in to override DISH's editorial choice with a mandate to carry local Public Broadcasting Service ("PBS") stations in HD format, because Congress believes that this government-sponsored speech is more valuable to DISH's subscribers than other programs that DISH might offer in HD or other uses to which DISH might put its scarce bandwidth," the suit says.

An FCC spokeswoman said the FCC would have no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Kurt Mische, president of public station KNPB in Reno, said the DISH Network lawsuit was typical of the company's bias against local programming.

He said DISH has long favored "putting up a national feed from the East Coast, which doesn't work well for us on the West Coast."

"It's very disappointing," Mische said of the lawsuit.

In contrast, cable TV companies and satellite competitor DirecTV have embraced carrying high definition local PBS programming, Mische said.

"DISH is the only holdout," said Mische, whose station has three digital channels and serves some 180,000 viewers in Northern Nevada and Northern California._


----------



## Greg Bimson

Jim5506 said:


> The way congress is throwing away money, they should have just funded PBS a wad and ordered Dish to carry them all free, or shut PBS down totally - if it can't support itself in the free market, it is not worth the wasted money.


Well, part of the mandate s that Dish Network has to carry them all for free. Because PBS stations are non-commercial, they can only invoke must-carry rights and cannot receive money from Dish Network. STELA forces Dish Network to come to an agreement with PBS by the end of the 60-day window, or else the law kicks in and determines a schedule in which the PBS stations MUST be delivered in HD along with any other market where HD is delivered.

Dish Network sued back in 2000 regarding the must-carry provision when SD was launching, and lost badly. I don't supect the times have changed much, so Dish Network wil probably be soundly beaten again...


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Well, part of the mandate s that Dish Network has to carry them all for free. Because PBS stations are non-commercial, they can only invoke must-carry rights and cannot receive money from Dish Network.


The big cost to DISH being backhaul and satellite bandwidth. I disagree with DISH on their "editorial decision" not to carry PBS. I can understand where they wouldn't want to carry several PBS stations per market all in HD but PBS is important programming and the idea that a satellite carrier is making "editorial" decisions is offensive.

If they focused on stations based on popularity I could agree but the "I don't like their programming" is a path to a losing argument.



> STELA forces Dish Network to come to an agreement with PBS by the end of the 60-day window, or else the law kicks in and determines a schedule in which the PBS stations MUST be delivered in HD along with any other market where HD is delivered.


The 60 days is a question ... For the purposes of the distant "qualified carrier" status, the FCC is considering February 27th as the "date of enactment" for STELA, not the May 27th presidential signing date. If May 27th is the reference there are still a few weeks left.



> Dish Network sued back in 2000 regarding the must-carry provision when SD was launching, and lost badly. I don't supect the times have changed much, so Dish Network wil probably be soundly beaten again...


This is another one of those times I wish that DISH would take the high road ... just offer the channels and be done with it ... instead of going to court.


----------



## phrelin

I wonder how pleased the courts will be to learn Charlie got a provision in STELA to overturn a previous court ruling but thinks he ought to be exempt from another part of STELA.

I'm not used to the federal court system. Can a customer get "friend of the court" status to file their own brief at the District Court level on a matter like a restrainng order and injunction?

I have lots of time and am not amused that Charlie thinks he can pick and choose the provisions of STELA he likes and will take advantage of and those he doesn't like and will try to avoid, all the while depriving me of PBS HD.


----------



## HarveyLA

phrelin said:


> I wonder how pleased the courts will be to learn Charlie got a provision in STELA to overturn a previous court ruling but thinks he ought to be exempt from another part of STELA.
> 
> I'm not used to the federal court system. Can a customer get "friend of the court" status to file their own brief at the District Court level on a matter like a restrainng order and injunction?
> 
> I have lots of time and am not amused that Charlie thinks he can pick and choose the provisions of STELA he likes and will take advantage of and those he doesn't like and will try to avoid, all the while depriving me of PBS HD.


The Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) would almost certainly be involved in this. You can contact them to see if there's some way to offer your support. 202-654-4200


----------



## phrelin

HarveyLA said:


> The Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) would almost certainly be involved in this. You can contact them to see if there's some way to offer your support. 202-654-4200


Good idea!


----------



## HarveyLA

_The 60 days is a question ... For the purposes of the distant "qualified carrier" status, the FCC is considering February 27th as the "date of enactment" for STELA, not the May 27th presidential signing date. If May 27th is the reference there are still a few weeks left
_
The reference does seem to be May 27. This was the intent- to put pressure on Dish for an agreement after signing of the bill, and the May 28 letter from APTS quoted in the first post of this thread does say they are continuing to try and negotiate with Dish.
But the 60 day window seems to have been slammed shut by the Dish lawsuit.


----------



## phrelin

We all know that this is a stalling tactic by Charlie. IMHO he out of his element when it comes to PBS and probably thinks there's enough ideological dislike of PBS that Congress won't be offended by what he's doing. You can't work the deals in the back halls of the Capitol and then renege after everything is done without consequences.


----------



## runner861

Dish Network has often resorted to litigation, even when that is not the best approach to handling a matter. Whether as a plaintiff or a defendant, Dish has involved itself in this PBS lawsuit, the Tivo lawsuit, and the distant networks lawsuit, just to name a few. Look at this quote from the appellate opinion in the distant networks lawsuit:

"While it is not normally the place for courts to second guess the
strategic decisions of counsel, we do note that, here,
EchoStar may have been better served by focusing on and
developing its serious objections as opposed to its
scattershot approach which ultimately wasted
limited space on patently unmeritorious claims of error."

Dish is acquiring a reputation with the courts.


----------



## JWKessler

HarveyLA said:


> Partial quote from Las Vegas Sun 7/1/10
> 
> "The 'PBS HD Mandate' is designed to coerce DISH into giving preferential treatment to programming that the government prefers, rather than leaving DISH to decide for itself how best to serve its subscribers with the programming choices that they want,"


That is rather offensive in my opinion. There are lots of HD channels I will never watch but I get them and am forced to pay for them anyway. PBS is one channel I want in HD and can not get.

From the PBS website - "Public broadcasting receives 15 percent of its funding from the government, and that this amount translates to about one dollar per person per year of government support".

I assume that 15% is federal funding. The states can kick in some as well, but lately that source of funding has been severely cut. Our local Pennsylvania station (WVIA) has announced that the state has pretty much eliminated their funding. So this channel is mostly funded by the people who watch it along with some corporations and private foundations.


----------



## phrelin

JWKessler said:


> That is rather offensive in my opinion. There are lots of HD channels I will never watch but I get them and am forced to pay for them anyway. PBS is one channel I want in HD and can not get.
> 
> From the PBS website - "Public broadcasting receives 15 percent of its funding from the government, and that this amount translates to about one dollar per person per year of government support".
> 
> I assume that 15% is federal funding. The states can kick in some as well, but lately that source of funding has been severely cut. Our local Pennsylvania station (WVIA) has announced that the state has pretty much eliminated their funding. So this channel is mostly funded by the people who watch it along with some corporations and private foundations.


And I would have to point out that the PBS system isn't without obligation for receiving those federal funds as noted in the article mentioned above:


> "We are deeply offended by the deliberately misleading conduct of this company," [Tom Axtell, general manager at Vegas PBS] said, adding there are emergency response and homeland security issues involved since public television stations are part of the nation's emergency communications system.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> And I would have to point out that the PBS system isn't without obligation for receiving those federal funds as noted in the article mentioned above:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are deeply offended by the deliberately misleading conduct of this company," [Tom Axtell, general manager at Vegas PBS] said, adding there are emergency response and homeland security issues involved since public television stations are part of the nation's emergency communications system.
Click to expand...

All broadcast stations (and cable systems) are a part of the nation's emergency communications system - not just PBS.
EAS is a requirement placed on all, even those not receiving federal funds to operate.


----------



## HarveyLA

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/454418-DISH_Sues_FCC_Over_Noncom_Mandate.php

From John Eggerton article in Broadcasting & Cable:

_Dish's move did not sit well with Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-calif.), who had been a driving force behind the noncom provision in the bill. "I and millions of other Americans depend on public television to deliver truth, entertainment, facts and beaut," she told B&C in an e-mailed statement. "The decision by DISH to challenge the federal requirement to carry public broadcasting stations in high definition is an affront to their customers who expect and deserve this service. If DISH has room to carry pornography, they can find room for PBS."

_


----------



## James Long

DISH carries one porn channel in HD. There are over 350 PBS member stations.
It is a little easier to carry the one national porn channel than hundreds of locals.


----------



## deepen10

wow DISH is ridiculous.. they need to just pay up and give us customers our HD CHANNELS! WTF! I still don't get my9 HD in the NY DMA. And no PBS-HD either(not that I ever watch PBS, but still!) 
and then with this new ESPN/DISNEY/ABCfamily crap. DISH is doing us customers wrong and they are gonna lose a lot of customers this year.

and how the hell can they sue the FCC!! that's the damn gov't for god sake! WHAT KIND OF BS IS THAT? The FCC should require DISH to provide any channel that's available in HD to every single market.. this is one of those times when more government is needed!


----------



## TulsaOK

deepen10 said:


> And no PBS-HD either(not that I ever watch PBS, but still!)...


:lol:


----------



## runner861

Dish can sue the government. People/companies sue the government all the time. For example, a district court judge just overturned the six-month ban of the Obama administration on deep-water oil drilling in response to a lawsuit filed by an oil driller in the Gulf Coast region.

However, the First Amendment arguments that Dish is raising are frivolous and will not succeed. They have been raised by cable operators in lawsuits in the past regarding carriage of local stations. Dish also raised the argument in their scatter-shot defense to the distant networks lawsuit a few years ago.

Dish, for whatever reason, consistently chooses to enter into litigation and continue fighting, even when the chances of success are essentially zero.

Does anyone know what Dish's position on the PBS carriage part of STELA was when the bill was under consideration? Or were they so focused on the distant networks portion that they failed to notice?


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> Does anyone know what Dish's position on the PBS carriage part of STELA was when the bill was under consideration? Or were they so focused on the distant networks portion that they failed to notice?


They were against it but were unable to keep the deadlines out of the bill.

If DISH is unable to comply with the new law going through the courts seems to be the only option other than blatently ignoring the law and waiting for someone to sue them. At the moment all new HD markets added MUST have their PBS channel immediately added in HD. Which means all of the markets DISH has been ready to add this year would have to have their PBS HD added immediately or DISH would be in violation of the law. The rest of the time based goals are based on the percentage of markets covered. Adding new HD markets raises the number of PBS HDs that need to be added.

This new regulation is causing DISH to hold back on new HD markets. Not only because any added now would need to include PBS HD but any market added would raise the number of PBS HDs to add.

If DISH wins the lawsuit they can add the new markets (and many others) without PBS HD. Without the lawsuit DISH has the choice of either not adding markets or violating the law (and potentially losing permission to ever carry local channels). If DISH cannot comply a lawsuit is the best option.


----------



## runner861

One other option they have is try to lobby Congress to pass a small bill that will loosen the deadlines a little. They also had the option of reaching an agreement with PBS privately. Lastly, they may be able to delete some of their pay-per-view and pornographic channels, although I don't know how much space that would yield. They also might want to recover the leased transponder from AAD, although I am not sure if that is a good option since Dish at this point cannot offer distants, and they still need some national distants on their system for RV customers. Plus, current subscribers to AAD will not want to lose those channels and might view it as a disruption.


----------



## normang

PBS should carry its own weight, for a Anna Eshoo to say that PBS has some exclusivity on the "truth" is laughable. 

PBS because of government funding will always lean towards the side of the aisle that wants to fund them the most, usually democrats, which is largely the way its always been as well as how they "report the truth"

PBS should stand on its own, if it can get people to fund them through their fund raising marathons, and whatever means they have, (even commerials "gasp") I don't think they deserve a dime of tax money if they really are needed and watched by so many that should be wiling to pay their operating costs.

And for forcing anyone to deliver the HD version of PBS, if its so important, the SD version should be just fine..


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> One other option they have is try to lobby Congress to pass a small bill that will loosen the deadlines a little.


DISH tried that with the distants/locals law back in 2006 and 2007. Congress didn't take real action until the law expired in 2009. I doubt we'll see changes in the carriage laws until 2014.



> They also had the option of reaching an agreement with PBS privately.


DISH has been working on that since last year. They have not quite come to terms.



> Lastly, they may be able to delete some of their pay-per-view and pornographic channels, although I don't know how much space that would yield.


Not much. (Are you Rep. Anna Eshoo or a follower?) By making such a suggestion you are playing into DISH's complaint that the government is trying to control content. You're making a content based decision. Just like DISH claims in their suit.

Ms. Eshoo is speaking from ignorance. Not a good place to start a conversation. DISH only has one HD porn channel and removing all of their SD "adult" lineup would free (at best) room for 10 HD channels - and they would be national channels, not the hundreds of local PBS HDs needed on spot beams.

Why target porn? Why not say that DISH should pull all of it's sports channels? Or is she (and you) afraid of upsetting millions of sports fans? Mentioning porn is just hype.

Here's an idea ... why not drop Free Speech TV and the other PIs DISH is required to carry? See if the Ms. Eshoo likes that.  (Not that it would provide enough space, but if we're getting in the business of picking and choosing content let's pick the least popular content to drop.)



> They also might want to recover the leased transponder from AAD, although I am not sure if that is a good option since Dish at this point cannot offer distants, and they still need some national distants on their system for RV customers. Plus, current subscribers to AAD will not want to lose those channels and might view it as a disruption.


DISH likes the money from AAD but it isn't DISH's service that will be disrupted ... it is AAD's. If the space is needed for programming that pays DISH more I'm sure DISH will be willing to give up the lease fees and use the space for something else.

Nothing personal, just business. DISH leasing space to AAD isn't as important as it used to be. That space could be used for 16 HD RSNs ... combined with the 12 slots used for temporary RSN use DISH could put up 28 24/7 HD RSNs - something that is being asked for by a lot more customers than those who want their local PBS HD or qualify for AAD.


----------



## normang

> Ms. Eshoo is speaking from ignorance. Not a good place to start a conversation


Unfortunately, most of the time, most of Congress speaks from complete and utter ignorance on many issues which in many cases, should not be managed there. And when they try and get "experts" on an issue, they only get the one's that are already on their side of the issue.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> DISH carries one porn channel in HD. There are over 350 PBS member stations.
> It is a little easier to carry the one national porn channel than hundreds of locals.


With regard to the number, I've been slowly assembling a spreadsheet to see if the problem for Dish is real at this time or only a potential problem.

The first thing is that in many states my list simply includes an entry:
*Iowa Public Television - statewide simulcast on nine stations*​So nine PBS stations are actually one. In some cases, like Colorado, there is a similar entry for five stations plus one more in the Denver area. So six PBS stations are actually two.

The second factor is how many of these stations broadcast in HD.

In my own area, the San Francisco Bay Area DMA, indeed there are four PBS stations in SD carried by Dish. KQED 9 has an HD signal. It's sister station KTEH does not. Nor does KCSM. KRCB in the North Bay does have an HD signal. So there is two out of four.

But in the Monterey/Salinas/Santa Cruz DMA, the PBS station KQET is a repeater of KQED 9.

So, for two California DMA's Dish would have to carry two HD signals even though there appears to be five PBS stations.

I haven't had time to finish my spreadsheet. But considering that Iowa has one signal for nine PBS stations, Colorado has two signals for six PBS stations, and where there are four PBS stations in the Bay Area only two are HD and the PBS station in a neighboring DMA is actually one of those two HD channels, it seems that of 20 PBS stations 5 are HD independent signals. My guess is that there are less than 100 HD PBS stations some of which Dish already carries, but I will keep plugging away at the spreadsheet when I have time.

It is apparent to me that Charlie & Company simply don't like being told what to do even when what they must do is part of a negotiated law that has special provisions for them. And while they may have some problems with transponder space for certain DMA's, they didn't deal with this three years ago when they should have while laying out the use of transponder space on the new satellites, probably because they don't watch PBS and can't understand why anyone would when they have fishing and tennis in HD.

In the meantime, because it was convenient to another totally unrelated objective (and probably really cheap) not involving my DMA, I get the MyNetworkTV affiliate KRON in HD, a total waste of transponder space, the owner of which went bankrupt.

But I don't get KQED 9 in HD, which first went on air in 1954 and is one of the most-watched PBS stations in the country and which produces a lot of quality original HD programming. I know that Charlie tried to get by on the cheap with a single national PBS channel in HD, which would not have carried that local original programming and which was an attempt at cheapness that he was going to lose.

Yep, I am irked that this year I am again left with a choice of watching the HD "A Capitol Fourth (2010)" in SD on my PBS station or "paid programming" in HD on the MyNetwork affiliate at 8 pm tomorrow, the Fourth of July. Or I could watch bass fishing on WFNHD.


----------



## James Long

The statewide networks help the number but there are plenty of states without a network. Plus I believe the law applies to all non-commercial educational stations, not just PBS. DISH has agreements with the major ones to carry a national channel instead of many local simulcasts - and I expect some day those nationals will go HD. But any non-comm who can manage to put together a HD signal would be a must carry station and be able to force carriage on DISH and DirecTV under these rules.


----------



## HarveyLA

_Ms. Eshoo is speaking from ignorance. Not a good place to start a conversation _

She was smart enough to get this provision inserted into the bill. Her statement is obviously aimed at her constituents who watch KQED, and the PBS stations, and not meant to be a legal argument in court.

she was honored two weeks ago for her support of public broadcasting:

_Congresswoman Anna Eshoo was honored for her support of public television at an event held by KQED in Mountain View on June 21. She received the Champion of Public Broadcasting award from the Association of Public Television Stations.

"There is only one place in the world of television that I can totally rely on for truth, entertainment, facts and beauty&#8230;and that is public broadcasting," Rep. Eshoo said. "I'm humbled to be chosen a 'Champion of Public Broadcasting' and awarded for the work I'm privileged to do."

The award recognizes individuals who have had a tremendous impact on the ability of local public television stations to meet the needs of the communities they serve, according to the association's press release._


----------



## RasputinAXP

I know in my area we'd only have 2 real PBS stations despite the plethora of WNJN networks; it's one statewide feed with 4 or 5 channels, plus WHYY 12 Philly/Wilmington.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> The statewide networks help the number but there are plenty of states without a network. Plus I believe the law applies to all non-commercial educational stations, not just PBS. DISH has agreements with the major ones to carry a national channel instead of many local simulcasts - and I expect some day those nationals will go HD. But any non-comm who can manage to put together a HD signal would be a must carry station and be able to force carriage on DISH and DirecTV under these rules.


So this law applies to channels like UCTV and BYUTV if they started broadcasting in HD?


----------



## HarveyLA

_Does anyone know what Dish's position on the PBS carriage part of STELA was when the bill was under consideration? Or were they so focused on the distant networks portion that they failed to notice?_

Dish's letter to congress last October is summarized in the John Eggerton article (post #15) (note that the proposal was later amended and pushed back a year to THE END of 2010 and THE END of 2011, but that still did not satisfy DISH)

_Back in October, in a letter to the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Dish Network EVP and General Counsel R. Stanton Dodge said the company would not be able to comply with the proposal that it deliver all noncommercial stations' HD signals by 2011 in markets where it delivers any local station HD signals._

_Dodge said that not only did that raise First Amendment concerns, but that it could not comply with the rollout
schedule--50% by 2010, the rest by 2011--without the additional satellite capacity which it won't have until it launches a new satellite in the fourth quarter of 2012._

_That $350 million satellite is being launched to meet the current FCC timetable for delivering all HD signals in any market where it carries any by February 2013. The FCC's is actually a phased transition over four years: carriage in 15% of markets by 2010, 30% by 2011, 60% by 2012 and 100% by 2013._


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> Not much. (Are you Rep. Anna Eshoo or a follower?) By making such a suggestion you are playing into DISH's complaint that the government is trying to control content. You're making a content based decision. Just like DISH claims in their suit.
> 
> Ms. Eshoo is speaking from ignorance. Not a good place to start a conversation. DISH only has one HD porn channel and removing all of their SD "adult" lineup would free (at best) room for 10 HD channels - and they would be national channels, not the hundreds of local PBS HDs needed on spot beams.
> 
> Why target porn? Why not say that DISH should pull all of it's sports channels? Or is she (and you) afraid of upsetting millions of sports fans? Mentioning porn is just hype.
> 
> Here's an idea ... why not drop Free Speech TV and the other PIs DISH is required to carry? See if the Ms. Eshoo likes that.  (Not that it would provide enough space, but if we're getting in the business of picking and choosing content let's pick the least popular content to drop.)
> 
> DISH likes the money from AAD but it isn't DISH's service that will be disrupted ... it is AAD's. If the space is needed for programming that pays DISH more I'm sure DISH will be willing to give up the lease fees and use the space for something else.
> 
> Nothing personal, just business. DISH leasing space to AAD isn't as important as it used to be. That space could be used for 16 HD RSNs ... combined with the 12 slots used for temporary RSN use DISH could put up 28 24/7 HD RSNs - something that is being asked for by a lot more customers than those who want their local PBS HD or qualify for AAD.


No, I am not Rep. Ashoo, and I had never heard of her until today. And no, I am not making a content-based decision. I am just a guy on a board kicking ideas around. Dish will have to make the content-based decision. Maybe they will have to delete pornography, maybe sports, maybe news, who knows?

You are absolutely correct that if the AAD lease is terminated, it is AAD's service, not Dish's service, that will be disrupted. I never said otherwise, and I am in complete agreement with you. It is, however, Dish's customers who will also be disrupted. (Although I have no figures, I expect that 99 percent of AAD subscribers are also Dish subscribers. It is, however, possible to subscribe to AAD and not subscribe to Dish.) Dish probably does not want their subscribers to have their AAD channels displaced.

Dish did lobby for this law, and they even had special provisions inserted just for them--the whole distant networks injunction part. Dish will now have to comply with the PBS portions of that law. Filing a lawsuit is not going to be successful. They could find themselves in a bigger mess than they were back in 2006 with the distant networks. And this mess could be a lot harder to get out of.


----------



## nmetro

Colorado has a state wide network; Rocky Mountain PBS, but each of the affiliated stations do run some local programming. Denver also has a second PBS station. So, in Colorado, DISH would have to provide six or seven PBS stations in HD.

The idea that DISH is playing this game, first with Disney, and now with PBS, is getting very tiring. It is one thing with Disney, but PBS, in my book, is no different than FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS; a network channel which is partially public supported. And PBS does run commercials; they just call them sponsors.

While some people can't stand PBS, there are some shows worth watching in HD like Nature, Masterpiece and NOVA. That is when the local station is not spending 1/3 of its time having auctions and pledge breaks pre-empting the several good PBS shows available.

So, now we DISH subscribers will now have to wait months for a local PBS station in HD, AMC, IFC, etc. in HD and we may lose all Disney owned HD programming (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, etc.) because of the DISH law suit game which puts their customers in the middle of these disputes. While this may make business sense to Charlie Ergen, it sure does not go over well with customers. I am waiting for teh next Desney show to drop; no ABC HD, ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD during College Football season.


----------



## nmetro

phrelin said:


> So this law applies to channels like UCTV and BYUTV if they started broadcasting in HD?


FYI, BYU TV is effectively KBYU from Provo, Utah. While not the exact equivalent of KBYU, it is effectively the same station. Sort of like WGN America is to WGN Chicago. I guess the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will will great in HD in Sunday mornings.


----------



## phrelin

nmetro said:


> Colorado has a state wide network; Rocky Mountain PBS, but each of the affiliated stations do run some local programming. Denver also has a second PBS station. So, in Colorado, DISH would have to provide six or seven PBS stations in HD.


OK. I was under the impression that at least KRMU and KRMZ didn't do their own programming. I guess figuring out nationally how many stations are not just simulcasts of a central station is going to be harder than I thought.


> The idea that DISH is playing this game, first with Disney, and now with PBS, is getting very tiring. It is one thing with Disney, but PBS, in my book, is no different than FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS; a network channel which is partially public supported. And PBS does run commercials; they just call them sponsors.
> 
> While some people can't stand PBS, there are some shows worth watching in HD like Nature, Masterpiece and NOVA. That is when the local station is not spending 1/3 of its time having auctions and pledge breaks pre-empting the several good PBS shows available.
> 
> So, now we DISH subscribers will now have to wait months for a local PBS station in HD, AMC, IFC, etc. in HD and we may lose all Disney owned HD programming (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, etc.) because of the DISH law suit game which puts their customers in the middle of these disputes. While this may make business sense to Charlie Ergen, it sure does not go over well with customers. I am waiting for teh next Desney show to drop; no ABC HD, ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD during College Football season.


Well, I must admit I'm perplexed at these two latest lawsuits. While I'd rather not have to pay more for Disney's cable block, it does appear that something is really wrong there on the Dish side. And this STELA lawsuit is unconscionable and pointless IMHO.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> I expect that 99 percent of AAD subscribers are also Dish subscribers. ... Dish probably does not want their subscribers to have their AAD channels displaced.


I'd like to see the numbers the other way. How many of DISH's 14+ million customers have AAD distants? How many of those customers have dropped or will drop distants as soon as DISH provides a station of that network as part of the DISH subscription? How many DISH customers will be actually annoyed if AAD does not get their lease renewed? 100,000? 200,000? 500,000?

I expect the number of annoyed customers would be fairly low - and DISH could make a lot more customers happy by dropping the lease to AAD and adding 24x7 RSNs than they would keep happy by keeping AAD.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> I'd like to see the numbers the other way. How many of DISH's 14+ million customers have AAD distants? How many of those customers have dropped or will drop distants as soon as DISH provides a station of that network as part of the DISH subscription? How many DISH customers will be actually annoyed if AAD does not get their lease renewed? 100,000? 200,000? 500,000?
> 
> I expect the number of annoyed customers would be fairly low - and DISH could make a lot more customers happy by dropping the lease to AAD and adding 24x7 RSNs than they would keep happy by keeping AAD.


Isn't this a little off topic? Talking about 24-hour RSNs in a PBS thread? AAD is still taking year-long subscriptions, so it looks like they aren't going anywhere. Besides, AAD is the exclusive provider of distant networks to Dish's RV customers. Even though the number of RV customers is small compared to other customers, there are only two chances that Dish will cut its RV customers loose--slim and none, and slim just left town.

Dish is unlikely to terminate the lease with AAD. Doing so would gain them no new transponder space. Dish would have to keep the same stations uplinked on the same transponders to satisfy the RV customers, if no one else.


----------



## James Long

Perhaps you should go back and read the thread. You're the guy who suggested dropping AAD ("recover the leased transponder from AAD") ... which would not help DISH provide PBS HD to all markets. If DISH _*is*_ going to drop AAD there is a much more popular use for that channel space - which is TWO transponders and enough space combined with the existing space use to provide said much more popular use.

AAD's business practices are not my concern. Perhaps you can stop mentioning them? Then people won't have to read your off topic comments and potentially respond to them. I don't care if AAD sells lifetime subscriptions to distants (the way SkyAngel sold lifetime subscriptions to their service). When AAD no longer has a transponder lease they no longer have a service - just like SkyAngel.

Now that I've chased your rabbit back down the hole ... back to topic - or at least don't complain about the topic if you're not willing to stay on topic.


----------



## runner861

Can you describe in detail the level of shortage of transponder space that Dish faces with regard to PBS? How much can they realistically do right now, or this year, without cutting anything?


----------



## JWKessler

James Long said:


> DISH likes the money from AAD but it isn't DISH's service that will be disrupted ... it is AAD's. If the space is needed for programming that pays DISH more I'm sure DISH will be willing to give up the lease fees and use the space for something else.
> 
> Nothing personal, just business. DISH leasing space to AAD isn't as important as it used to be. That space could be used for 16 HD RSNs ... combined with the 12 slots used for temporary RSN use DISH could put up 28 24/7 HD RSNs - something that is being asked for by a lot more customers than those who want their local PBS HD or qualify for AAD.


I wouldn't be a Dish customer without the nationals in HD. AAD is the only way I can get that. I only wish the national PBS feed was in HD. Fixing that would solve a lot of problems with a minimum of pain.


----------



## JWKessler

James Long said:


> ...I believe the law applies to all non-commercial educational stations, not just PBS. DISH has agreements with the major ones to carry a national channel instead of many local simulcasts - and I expect some day those nationals will go HD. But any non-comm who can manage to put together a HD signal would be a must carry station and be able to force carriage on DISH and DirecTV under these rules.


As a point of interest, back when I had my C-Band dish operating, PBS provided a national feed in HD for free. They attempted to lock it at one point but there was a rather large uproar over that so they switched to free mode. All you needed was a receiver with an HD Video Cypher decoder to get the service. In fact, if I recall correctly there were several PBS channels - some SD and some HD. In addition we could get a bunch of Nebraska Public TV channels in HD.

The national PBS feed at that time was actually a station in Virginia, so we got the Virginia pledge drives.


----------



## HarveyLA

runner861 said:


> Can you describe in detail the level of shortage of transponder space that Dish faces with regard to PBS? How much can they realistically do right now, or this year, without cutting anything?


Doubt if a specific answer is forthcoming on that one! But shortage may not be the right word. Congress clearly thinks there is extra capacity available. Dish is not about to reveal this kind of information. The recently activated Echostar 14 has added spotbeam capacity. Some of that will go to meeting the earlier FCC formula that requires 30 percent of markets in HD (all stations in a market, not just noncoms) by early next year. That's an increase of 15% over the benchmark they reached early this year (by adding very small markets).

To reach 50 percent of market for HD noncoms by the end of this year, means an additional 20 percent beyond the above requirement, or roughly 40 additional PBS locals in HD, assuming Dish can continue to target smaller markets with just one noncommercial station each.

Another spotbeam satellite is due for launch next year.
PBS viewers in large markets will no doubt have to wait it out to the bitter end! Another year and a half if Dish's FCC lawsuit fails.


----------



## HarveyLA

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/454484-DISH_Gets_July_22_Day_In_Court.php

Court date set for July 22- John Eggerton in Broadcasting & Cable

_According to DISH Network, a Nevada court has set a July 22 date for a hearing on DISH's argument for a temporary injunction against FCC enforcement of the HD carriage mandate in the satellite reauthorization bill.

DISH filed for an injunction last week in Nevada, where it is incorporated, because it is facing a July 27 deadline for coming to carriage terms with 30 noncom stations or triggering a speeded-up (by the end of next year) timetable for carriage of all noncommercial signals in any market where it carries any stations in HD.

DISH's bone to pick is not with the FCC, which is required to enforce the law, but with the legislation that it argues puts a thumb on the scale in favor of a particular type of programming.

DISH says the mandate violates its First and Fifth Amendment rights and has already put a crimp in business plans it based on the 2008 FCC timetable for phasing in HD carriage of all local TV stations, including noncoms, by 2013. _

______________________________________
July 27 is not actually a "trigger." The law is in effect. July 27 is the deadline for bypassing the law with a private agreement, which has not been reached in several years of negotiations between Dish and APTS. For more on this, see the first post in this thread. 
The "30 noncom stations" language in the law actually refers to APTS because that is the only organization representing that many stations. It actually represents most if not all of the noncommercial stations. 
If the temporary injunction is denied, Dish will have five days left to reach a private agreement. Any bets on that?


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> Congress clearly thinks there is extra capacity available.


A funny thing about Congress ... they are experts in everything - after the fact. They are the ultimate pointy haired bosses.



> Dish is not about to reveal this kind of information. The recently activated Echostar 14 has added spotbeam capacity.


I don't believe Congress would understand the information. They don't understand simple statements such as "we can't do that". Even if they were given all of the proprietary information available I'm sure they wouldn't be any smarter than Internet junkies second guessing. (The proof of that is the moronic "drop porn" suggestion from the congresswoman from California. Dropping 12 SD channels isn't going to provide room for all the HD channels required.)



> Another spotbeam satellite is due for launch next year.
> PBS viewers in large markets will no doubt have to wait it out to the bitter end! Another year and a half if Dish's FCC lawsuit fails.


It won't be just PBS viewers waiting if the lawsuit fails. Don't expect any new HD locals outside of markets that already have them.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> I don't believe Congress would understand the information. They don't understand simple statements such as "we can't do that". Even if they were given all of the proprietary information available I'm sure they wouldn't be any smarter than Internet junkies second guessing. (The proof of that is the moronic "drop porn" suggestion from the congresswoman from California. Dropping 12 SD channels isn't going to provide room for all the HD channels required.)


The statement by Rep. Ashoo about dropping pornographic channels was a political comment made to her audience at the time. However, I wish that the insults on the board would stop. Some people will find the adjective used to describe her comment insulting. It is actually in the same category as the use of the term "retarded," another term which is outdated and insulting and demeaning. An easier, more effective way to confront the comment would be to simply state that you disagree with it, and why.

But, if Dish really lacks the capacity, then dropping those channels, along with other cuts, will have to be on the table. As far as Congress not understanding the capacity information, some members would, some wouldn't. That is the system we have. Just like in a trial, sometimes the judge and/or jury understands the issues, sometimes they don't.


----------



## James Long

If it makes you feel better read that word as "utterly stupid and ill informed". If you have other terms that apply to her comment feel free to read them in in your own mind as well. I am not a doctor so I am not using the term in the clinical sense.

Feel free to answer the question of how dropping 12 SD channels (of any content) of ConUS coverage will help provide the spotbeam carriage of individual PBS stations to hundreds of markets. As far as dropping more programming, the suggestion just supports DISH's contention that the government is trying to control the content of their service. It would be best if the government would stay away from making suggestions on what should or should not be cut from a companies product line.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> Feel free to answer the question of how dropping 12 SD channels (of any content) of ConUS coverage will help provide the spotbeam carriage of individual PBS stations to hundreds of markets. As far as dropping more programming, the suggestion just supports DISH's contention that the government is trying to control the content of their service. It would be best if the government would stay away from making suggestions on what should or should not be cut from a companies product line.


We don't even know if Dish really has to cut anything, or what Dish's motivation is in this lawsuit. The government is not telling Dish it has to cut anything. Dish, not you, not me, has to make that decision. I am just kicking ideas around on a discussion board.

Show me where in STELA the law states that any programming has to be cut. STELA is mandating carriage of certain public stations on a timetable, one either prescribed in STELA or one agreed to between Dish and PBS.

Let's wait and see if Dish's First Amendment arguments are substantive, or frivolous.

Please don't overstate the case, such as by stating, "It would be best if the government would stay away from making suggestions on what should or should not be cut from a companies product line." There are no restrictions on capacity, or suggestions or requirements for cuts, in STELA. STELA is merely requiring that a taxpayer-supported broadcast be made available to satellite subscribers.


----------



## James Long

The last I checked, Rep. Ashoo was part of the government. Perhaps she won't be next year, but as long as she is part of the government she should restrain herself from making uneducated comments about issues she obviously does not understand, regardless of the immediate audience. We have the Internet ... there is no such thing as a political comment to a small group of people.


----------



## runner861

Perhaps you should send her a letter. She may respond and you could gain a greater insight into what she was saying and what her opinion is on the satellite/PBS situation.


----------



## HarveyLA

http://www.multichannel.com/article...e_Approves_Satellite_Reauthorization_Bill.php

In view of the current discussion, the following from October 15, 2009 is particularly interesting. Note the comment of Rep. Eshoo at the end, that "Dish in its negotiations had already said it could speed up the HD rollout."

The bill was still being revised at that time. Note that the deadlines quoted here were later pushed back a year to the end of 2010 and the end of 2011. John Eggerton writes:

_The bill includes an amendment, approved in the markup, that would require Dish to deliver public TV stations' HD versions on an accelerated timetable. The FCC already has a phased-in schedule that would require carriage of all HD signals by 2013. But the amendment would require 50% carriage by 2010 and the balance by 2011.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va), chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, somewhat reluctantly opposed the amendment, which passed 31 to 20 on a mostly party line vote. He said he was concerned that Dish would not be able to deliver local into local in all 210 markets and meet the accelerated HD schedule given current satellite capacity constraints.

Republicans speaking up to oppose the amendment included Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), ranking committee member, who said that consumers should be making the decision, and have the choice to go with DirecTV, which offers HD noncom signals in 152 markets--Dish only carries them in Hawaii and Alaska per a government mandate in an earlier satellite reauthorization.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) agreed that consumers could vote with their feet and switch services.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), countered that noncommercial stations and Dish had been negotiating for three years without success and that the government needed to step in to spur the process. She said if the two sides could come to an agreement before the bill passed, the amendment would "melt away." She said that Dish in its negoatiations had already said it could speed up the HD rollout._


----------



## prm1177

You know I wonder if part of the PBS issue is a demand to carry all of each local stations' sub-channels. Right now they carry only the main broadcast channels in SD.

PBS is a tough call since any variation in programming between the stations are usually differences in Pledge Weeks.


----------



## Michael P

prm1177 said:


> You know I wonder if part of the PBS issue is a demand to carry all of each local stations' sub-channels. Right now they carry only the main broadcast channels in SD.
> 
> PBS is a tough call since any variation in programming between the stations are usually differences in Pledge Weeks.


You may be onto something. The subchannels are plentiful on both PBS stations in my market, albeit all SD. Some are retransmissions of national feeds, so E* could put up a conus feed for those. However there are also regional subchannels such as the Ohio channel that carries the governmental proceedings here. Fortunately the 2 PBS channels in my market finally dropped the duplication on that subchannel. The "secondary" PBS channel (WEAO-49) carries V-Me and The Arts channel instead, which are already carried on E*.

An speaking about WEAO, it is in 2 DMA's (Cleveland and Youngstown, as WNEO-45) 100% the same feed, so there is a savings there (I bet the SD feed for the 2 DMA's are the same transponder since the 2 DMA's are in the same geographical area (Northeast Ohio).


----------



## Bigg

Two points:

1. For Phrelin and the five other people who don't currently get PBS in HD, why can't they throw up WNET, WGBH and a couple of other big city PBS'es on CONUS and call it done? Some of the local ones, like WEDH (Connecticut) are going significantly downhill, while big ones like WNET aren't. For people in the situation, getting basic cable with clear QAM won't kill you.

2. For the other 13 million people, stop complaining, get off your lazy @$$es, put up an antenna and get the signal at a much higher bitrate without re-compression, and double the number of tuners on your 722/922.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Bigg said:


> 1. For Phrelin and the five other people who don't currently get PBS in HD, why can't they throw up WNET, WGBH and a couple of other big city PBS'es on CONUS and call it done?


Because the law states for every market in HD on Dish Network, the markets must have the non-commerical channels in HD by the end of 2011.

And the law is the law, unless someone can get it declared unconstitutional. That doesn't happen very often.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Bigg said:


> 2. For the other 13 million people, stop complaining, get off your lazy @$$es, put up an antenna and get the signal at a much higher bitrate without re-compression, and double the number of tuners on your 722/922.


I would but WHYY is in VHF-land and is a pain in in the gluteas maximus to pick up.


----------



## HarveyLA

_2. For the other 13 million people, stop complaining, get off your lazy @$$es, put up an antenna and get the signal at a much higher bitrate without re-compression, and double the number of tuners on your 722/922._

Here in Los Angeles, we have many homes in canyons where there is no off-air television reception at all.


----------



## articos

HarveyLA said:


> _2. For the other 13 million people, stop complaining, get off your lazy @$$es, put up an antenna and get the signal at a much higher bitrate without re-compression, and double the number of tuners on your 722/922._
> 
> Here in Los Angeles, we have many homes in canyons where there is no off-air television reception at all.


I'm one of them, and I'm not even in a canyon. My entire neighborhood just happens to be blocked from line-of-sight to Mt. Wilson. No signal ota, period. So, yes, I - and many others - would appreciate it if Dish and PBS would make the deal for carriage to be able to get KCET-HD sooner rather than later.


----------



## phrelin

Bigg said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1. For Phrelin and the five other people who don't currently get PBS in HD, why can't they throw up WNET, WGBH and a couple of other big city PBS'es on CONUS and call it done? Some of the local ones, like WEDH (Connecticut) are going significantly downhill, while big ones like WNET aren't. For people in the situation, getting basic cable with clear QAM won't kill you.
> 
> 2. For the other 13 million people, stop complaining, get off your lazy @$$es, put up an antenna and get the signal at a much higher bitrate without re-compression, and double the number of tuners on your 722/922.


There are regions in California geographically larger than the State of Connecticut that don't get OTA or have access to basic cable. And basic cable doesn't get me HD from Comcast.

Had Charlie understood the big picture related to PBS as well as he understands satellite technology, he wouldn't be in this bind as he would have simply negotiated PBS station-by-station as part of turning on HD for the big four in each DMA over many years now. The one problem Dish is saddled with now is just how much his personal interests are reflected in its choices. Dish has fishing, tennis, and lawsuits.


----------



## HarveyLA

The APTS has issued its response to the lawsuit. 
http://www.apts.org/

Not much new- basically a recap of what's already been posted here.

Here are a few quotes:

_The Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) expressed disappointment, but not surprise, that DISH Network filed a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, against the FCC's enforcement of the STELA provision. _

_The U.S. Department of Justice is defending the FCC in this litigation. APTS will file an amicus brief addressing the need for the STELA provision in order to prevent further discrimination by DISH against public television HD programming. A court date is set for July 22, 2010. _
______________________________________________________________
Amicus briefs are filed by parties with an interest in a case, but not directly involved. Their brief becomes part of the court record.

Isn't it interesting that the Dish customers who want PBS-HD (and all Dish customers) are funding Dish's legal costs to try and postpone this service. They are also paying for the government's side, of course, as taxpayers.


----------



## articos

phrelin said:


> There are regions in California geographically larger than the State of Connecticut that don't get OTA or have access to basic cable. And basic cable doesn't get me HD from Comcast.


Not to mention basic cable defeats the purpose of having satellite in the first place. Plus, in CA, basic cable is not priced 'basically' - esp. with fees and taxes added - for intermittently adequate service.



phrelin said:


> Dish has fishing, tennis, and lawsuits.


That is one of the top satellite quotes of all time. Well played, sir. :up:


----------



## RLMesq

normang said:


> And for forcing anyone to deliver the HD version of PBS, if its so important, the SD version should be just fine..


Three words for you... _*Austin City Limits.*_

Getting one of the best music shows, ever, in HD would make my day.


----------



## TulsaOK

RLMesq said:


> Three words for you... _*Austin City Limits.*_
> 
> Getting one of the best music shows, ever, in HD would make my day.


I get it OTA. Three words for you - it looks great.


----------



## phrelin

Kent Taylor said:


> I get it OTA. Three words for you - it looks great.


Sigh. I'm green with envy.


----------



## Bigg

phrelin said:


> There are regions in California geographically larger than the State of Connecticut that don't get OTA or have access to basic cable. And basic cable doesn't get me HD from Comcast.
> 
> Had Charlie understood the big picture related to PBS as well as he understands satellite technology, he wouldn't be in this bind as he would have simply negotiated PBS station-by-station as part of turning on HD for the big four in each DMA over many years now. The one problem Dish is saddled with now is just how much his personal interests are reflected in its choices. Dish has fishing, tennis, and lawsuits.


We also are served by three DMA's (NYC, Hartford-New Haven, and Providence), and the Hartford-New Haven DMA serves all of CT plus Long Island, Rhode Island, and Western Mass. Those are not the actual DMA lines, but that is where the OTA signals are able to be received.

Basic cable has locals in HD, because they are Clear QAM. Add an MCE PC to that, and you have a clear QAM DVR.

I thought it was mostly a satellite capacity issue, not negotiations. How are the content providers able to require a re-negotiation, when DISH already carries the signal- it's just cut-off and downrez'ed? What's the different between the full feed and the cut-off and downrez'ed version? Does the current contract stipulate a maximum amount of the screen, and a maximum number of pixels that they can carry?


----------



## phrelin

Bigg said:


> I thought it was mostly a satellite capacity issue, not negotiations. How are the content providers able to require a re-negotiation, when DISH already carries the signal- it's just cut-off and downrez'ed? What's the different between the full feed and the cut-off and downrez'ed version? Does the current contract stipulate a maximum amount of the screen, and a maximum number of pixels that they can carry?


Satellite capacity is an issue, certainly up until this year a significant issue. But my perspective on the matter is skewed.

Here in the San Francisco DMA it was a major affront to my sense of justice that without adding the award winning PBS station KQED HD, Dish willingly agreed to waste HD bandwidth on the now bankrupt Young Broadcasting station KRON, a crappy MyNetwork affiliate that many longer term residents have a grudge against because of history.

Since the contracts are not public documents that I can find, I have no idea what's in them. I think language in contracts like this have been developing.

For instance, my guess is that the Disney contracts contained some fuzzy language that made Dish think it was worth risking carrying the HD channels they are now fighting over in court. That fuzzy language probably won't appear in any future contracts.

I would assume that HBO and HDNet have some significant technical language related to quality.

But who, other than Charlie and his legal team, knows what's in all those contracts?


----------



## HarveyLA

Bigg said:


> I thought it was mostly a satellite capacity issue, not negotiations. How are the content providers able to require a re-negotiation, when DISH already carries the signal- it's just cut-off and downrez'ed? What's the different between the full feed and the cut-off and downrez'ed version? Does the current contract stipulate a maximum amount of the screen, and a maximum number of pixels that they can carry?


That is one complicated question!

It is a two-tiered, if not three-tiered situation. There are certain must carry rules that Dish must follow for local stations, that do not apply to HD. Then there is the timetable by which they must provide all stations in local markets in HD. Then there is the recently passed STELA that speeded that up for noncommercial stations in HD. Negotiations are not necessarily involved, although Dish has a few weeks left to reach a private agreement on carrying noncommercial stations in HD (pending outcome of the court hearing.)
What would they negotiate, and why? We wouldn't know until or unless it happens. My thought is that both sides would benefit from an agreement specifying a certain number of top markets to be added first. As stated earlier in this thread, the PBS stations can not negotiate carriage for money, but can only negotiate to request carriage. That is the FCC rule relating to cable, so it presumably applies to satellite as well. There has been some speculation in this thread that APTS is negotiating for carriage of subchannels. Dish, in the STELA law, is only required to carry the main channel.

As far as the issue of satellite capacity versus negotiations is concerned,
Dish maintains it does not have the satellite capacity to meet the STELA requirements, although congresswoman Eshoo indicated the issue was mostly about negotiations, during hearings last October:

_The bill's sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), countered that noncommercial stations and Dish had been negotiating for three years without success and that the government needed to step in to spur the process. She said if the two sides could come to an agreement before the bill passed, the amendment would "melt away." She said that Dish in its negoatiations had already said it could speed up the HD rollout.
_


----------



## Paul Secic

RLMesq said:


> Three words for you... _*Austin City Limits.*_
> 
> Getting one of the best music shows, ever, in HD would make my day.


And don't forget Lawrence Welk! PBS must have a long term contract with the syndication CO. That show has been on PBS for 35 years at least.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Bigg said:


> Does the current contract stipulate a maximum amount of the screen, and a maximum number of pixels that they can carry?


So let's start with this one, first.

All PBS (and other non-comm channels) are on Dish Network in SD because of must-carry. There is no contract, per se. The stations simply declare must-carry, and Dish Network then must provide them.

Of course, Dish Network tried to get must-carry ruled unconstitutional back in 2001, mainly because they didn't have the capacity for additional non-comms back then.


Bigg said:


> I thought it was mostly a satellite capacity issue, not negotiations. How are the content providers able to require a re-negotiation, when DISH already carries the signal- it's just cut-off and downrez'ed? What's the different between the full feed and the cut-off and downrez'ed version?


There is something in the law that allows for SD as a downconvert of HD to fulfill the must-carry requirement. So all Dish Network would need to do is downrez the broadcast signal and be in compliance with must-carry. STELA is providing for "must-carry" in HD for non-comms, which is why there is a required renegotiation. Or more technically, no negotiation is required, and then Dish Network would be required by law to have both SD and HD channels available for non-comms.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> All PBS (and other non-comm channels) are on Dish Network in SD because of must-carry. There is no contract, per se. The stations simply declare must-carry, and Dish Network then must provide them.


It is simpler than than. All non-commercial stations are defined as must carry ... nothing to declare.



> There is something in the law that allows for SD as a downconvert of HD to fulfill the must-carry requirement. So all Dish Network would need to do is downrez the broadcast signal and be in compliance with must-carry.


They are carrying the primary feed of the channel, as required. They were not yet required (pre-STELA) to offer every channel carriage in HD. The FCC had some goals but STELA changed the timetable and created a law.



> STELA is providing for "must-carry" in HD for non-comms, which is why there is a required renegotiation. Or more technically, no negotiation is required, and then Dish Network would be required by law to have both SD and HD channels available for non-comms.


DISH would not be required to provide a SD feed to a customer who can receive the HD feed. But in essence both are required as DISH still has SD customers. The difference would be Eastern Arc where DISH typically ends the provision of a SD feed when that local channel's HD feed is made available.

The HD must carry only applies in markets where any local channel is carried in HD ... HD non-comms are not required in SD only markets. Carriage is also phased in however all _NEW_ HD markets (after STELA enacted) require the immediate addition of the HD non-comms.

And while I understand that meeting the deadline may be difficult DISH needs to get with it. Either make the deal that would relieve the pressure to put up every market or add PBS in all HD markets meeting the deadlines. DISH should be able to find enough markets to meet the percentage deadlines without running out of bandwidth.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> It is simpler than than. All non-commercial stations are defined as must carry ... nothing to declare.


I am remembering something regarding the Lehigh Valley PBS station and the Philadelphia market somewhere around 2005. I remember DirecTV dropped the channel over the fact that the "must-carry" paperwork wasn't filed with DirecTV, but an agreement was reached within a month to get the channel available for Philadelphia-market DirecTV subscribers.

The "declaration" of must-carry may be passive, but the stations must actively file their paperwork with the satellite company to assert their rights in order to be carried.


James Long said:


> They are carrying the primary feed of the channel, as required.


Right, and that was my point. PBS in SD is avaialble because of the laws currently on the books, and the law allows for these downconverts to maintain must-carry. There isn't some kind of carriage agreement which discusses downconverts; it is just a part of the law.


James Long said:


> DISH would not be required to provide a SD feed to a customer who can receive the HD feed. But in essence both are required as DISH still has SD customers. The difference would be Eastern Arc where DISH typically ends the provision of a SD feed when that local channel's HD feed is made available.


True, but even then, that means Dish Network customers would fall into three basic, distinct categories:

Eastern Arc, where HD customers pointing to the eastern slots are receiving a set of HD and HD locals;
Western Arc, where HD customer would be pointing to the western slots and are receviing a mixture of locals;
SD customers, who are still only pointed to 110/119 and have a full slate of SD networks

And until there aren't anymore SD-only subscribers (and that would take a while), the locals on Eastern Arc (and Western Arc, once available) would also be duplicated in SD from the core slots.

Edit: I know there are more subcategories, but my main point is until all SD-only service is the way of the dodo, duplication will have to continue.


----------



## Bigg

HarveyLA said:


> That is one complicated question!
> 
> It is a two-tiered, if not three-tiered situation. There are certain must carry rules that Dish must follow for local stations, that do not apply to HD. Then there is the timetable by which they must provide all stations in local markets in HD. Then there is the recently passed STELA that speeded that up for noncommercial stations in HD. Negotiations are not necessarily involved, although Dish has a few weeks left to reach a private agreement on carrying noncommercial stations in HD (pending outcome of the court hearing.)
> What would they negotiate, and why? We wouldn't know until or unless it happens. My thought is that both sides would benefit from an agreement specifying a certain number of top markets to be added first. As stated earlier in this thread, the PBS stations can not negotiate carriage for money, but can only negotiate to request carriage. That is the FCC rule relating to cable, so it presumably applies to satellite as well. There has been some speculation in this thread that APTS is negotiating for carriage of subchannels. Dish, in the STELA law, is only required to carry the main channel.
> 
> As far as the issue of satellite capacity versus negotiations is concerned,
> Dish maintains it does not have the satellite capacity to meet the STELA requirements, although congresswoman Eshoo indicated the issue was mostly about negotiations, during hearings last October:
> 
> _The bill's sponsor, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), countered that noncommercial stations and Dish had been negotiating for three years without success and that the government needed to step in to spur the process. She said if the two sides could come to an agreement before the bill passed, the amendment would "melt away." She said that Dish in its negoatiations had already said it could speed up the HD rollout.
> _


So you're saying DISH isn't negotiating to get PBS, but PBS is negotiating to get bandwidth on DISH? If this is the case, why doesn't PBS provide DISH with the right to blast out WNET and a couple other big ones as CONUS?

Also, aren't the subchannels just simulcasts that could be carried CONUS anyways? I know CONUS HD is sort of a big deal, but a few channels of CONUS SD can't possibly mean anything to DISH?

This is really a waste of the government's time, however. They should just send people a link to Antennasdirect.com . LIL's are still going to suck, no matter what the government mandates, as they are double re-encoded in some cases.

EA is not duplicated, as all EA receivers can do the downconversion locally.


----------



## HarveyLA

Bigg said:


> So you're saying DISH isn't negotiating to get PBS, but PBS is negotiating to get bandwidth on DISH?
> 
> THE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN SECRET, SO WHO KNOWS WHAT'S INVOLVED. IT PROBABLY LEANS A LOT MORE TOWARDS NONCOMS ASKING FOR CARRIAGE. BUT THERE COULD BE MORE TO IT THAN THAT. THE DIRECTV-DISH AGREEMENT REACHED IN 2008 INCLUDED A TIMETABLE FOR ADDING ALL PBS LOCALS, AS WELL AS SOME BELLS AND WHISTLES, NOTED BELOW. THE AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN DISH, PBS AND APTS (ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS). APTS HAS TAKEN THE LEAD IN THE DISH NEGOTIATIONS, NOT PBS.
> 
> _DIRECTV, APTS and PBS also will work together to develop new video on demand offerings to make available local and national public television programming to DIRECTV's customers anytime they want it. In addition, DIRECTV will carry two national standard-definition channels of Public Television programming, further expanding its commitment to high-quality educational programming._
> 
> If this is the case, why doesn't PBS provide DISH with the right to blast out WNET and a couple other big ones as CONUS?
> 
> APTS REPRESENTS ALL OF THE PBS AND OTHER NONCOMMERCIAL STATIONS. AND LIKE THE COMMERCIAL STATIONS, THEY DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM DISTANT SIGNALS- OTHER LOCAL STATIONS IMPORTED FROM OUTSIDE THEIR MARKET (YOU ARE OF COURSE WELL AWARE OF THE RECENT BATTLE OVER THAT INVOLVING DISH) THIS STRIKES AT THE HEART OF LOCAL TV BROADCASTING IN THIS COUNTRY.
> 
> Also, aren't the subchannels just simulcasts that could be carried CONUS anyways? I know CONUS HD is sort of a big deal, but a few channels of CONUS SD can't possibly mean anything to DISH?
> 
> SOME PBS STATIONS HAVE AS MANY AS FOUR SEPARATE PROGRAMS DURING THE DAY- DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL FEEDS FOR EXAMPLE. IT MIGHT BE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE DUPLICATED ON SOME OTHER STATIONS AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. BUT REGARDLESS, THE SAME PRINCIPLE ABOVE, APPLIES.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Bigg said:


> So you're saying DISH isn't negotiating to get PBS, but PBS is negotiating to get bandwidth on DISH? If this is the case, why doesn't PBS provide DISH with the right to blast out WNET and a couple other big ones as CONUS?


You are forgetting who owns the rights. PBS cannot "provide DISH with the right to blast out WNET and a couple other big ones as CONUS". PBS doesn't own WNET. PBS doesn't own any stations.


Bigg said:


> Also, aren't the subchannels just simulcasts that could be carried CONUS anyways? I know CONUS HD is sort of a big deal, but a few channels of CONUS SD can't possibly mean anything to DISH?


I believe that's basically what DirecTV did within their agreement with APTS.


Bigg said:


> This is really a waste of the government's time, however. They should just send people a link to Antennasdirect.com . LIL's are still going to suck, no matter what the government mandates, as they are double re-encoded in some cases.


It could be a waste to some, but no more wasteful than broadcasting a set of locals in MPEG4 from one satellite cluster and broadcasting those same locals in MPEG2 from another.

Besides, the government already wasted their time passing the law. It isn't much of a waste defending it, as it won't be hard to say passage of the bill was constitutonal.


----------



## James Long

It looks like DISH may add the PBS HDs to the unreleased markets ... which means new HD markets when all this is made available ...

*New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels NOT Available*
5274 WCES (20 HD) WRENS, GA (PBS) added to 119° 3sA17 (Greenville) (HD Augusta, GA market *TEST* Hidden)
5275 WEBA (14 HD) ALLENDALE, SC (PBS) added to 119° 3sA17 (Greenville) (HD Augusta, GA market *TEST* Hidden)
6565 KTVZD (12) BEND, OR (NBC) added to 129° 15s10 (Central Oregon) (SD Bend, OR market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (12-02)
5194 KQIN (36 HD) DAVENPORT, IA (PBS) added to 77° TP 6 (HD Davenport, IA/Rock Island, IL market *TEST* Hidden)
5195 WQPT (24 HD) MOLINE, IL (ETV) added to 77° TP 6 (HD Davenport, IA/Rock Island, IL market *TEST* Hidden)
5274 WNIN (12 HD) EVANSVILLE, IN (PBS) added to 77° TP 13 (HD Evansville, IN market *TEST* Hidden)
5275 WKOH (31 HD) OWENSBORO, KY (PBS) added to 77° TP 13 (HD Evansville, IN market *TEST* Hidden)
5284 WMUM (29 HD) COCHRAN, GA (PBS) added to 77° TP 16 (HD Macon, GA market *TEST* Hidden)
5284 KLTM (13 HD) MONROE, LA (PBS) added to 77° TP 14 (HD Monroe, LA market *TEST* Hidden)
5285 KETZ (12 HD) EL DORADO, AR (PBS) added to 77° TP 14 (HD Monroe, LA market *TEST* Hidden)
5155 WSIU (8 HD) CARBONDALE, IL (PBS) added to 77° TP 18 (HD Paducah, KY/Harrisburg, IL market *TEST* Hidden)
5265 KYIN (24 HD) MASON CITY, IA (PBS) added to 119° 5sA07 (Sioux Falls) (HD Rochester, MN/Mason City, IA market *TEST* Hidden)
5264 KLTS (24 HD) SHREVEPORT, LA (PBS) added to 119° 1sA13 (Shreveport) (HD Shreveport, LA market *TEST* Hidden)
5264 KPTS (8 HD) HUTCHINSON, KS (PBS) added to 119° 4sB09 (Oklahoma City) (HD Wichita, KS market *TEST* Hidden)


----------



## HarveyLA

James Long said:


> It looks like DISH may add the PBS HDs to the unreleased markets ... which means new HD markets when all this is made available ...


That is only because DISH is required to do so under the newly passed STELA.


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like DISH may add the PBS HDs to the unreleased markets ... which means new HD markets when all this is made available ...
> 
> 
> 
> That is only because DISH is required to do so under the newly passed STELA.
Click to expand...

The point is that DISH has been holding off on the release of these markets and sued to get the PBS-HD requirement waived.

It appears that DISH has relented and has decided to add PBS-HDs (as STELA required) instead of waiting for a court victory.


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> The point is that DISH has been holding off on the release of these markets and sued to get the PBS-HD requirement waived.
> 
> It appears that DISH has relented and has decided to add PBS-HDs (as STELA required) instead of waiting for a court victory.


So now that all the Paducah, Ky DMA channels are uplinked and the HD is in place, any wild clue as to when they will become actually viewable by us poor customers?

As one vulture said to the other ' patience my A$$, I'm gonna kill something '


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> So now that all the Paducah, Ky DMA channels are uplinked and the HD is in place, any wild clue as to when they will become actually viewable by us poor customers?


Usual answer: "Soon".

I'm surprised that these markets were not turned on last night. They have been a long time in coming.


----------



## l8er

lparsons21 said:


> .... As one vulture said to the other ' patience my A$$, I'm gonna kill something '


[pedantic on]

Must be one confused vulture. Since they're scavengers they don't kill anything, they only eat what gets left behind by other animals or humans (prey, roadkill, etc.). So the "punchline" makes no sense at all.

[/pedantic off]


----------



## James Long

l8er said:


> Must be one confused vulture. Since they're scavengers they don't kill anything, they only eat what gets left behind by other animals or humans (prey, roadkill, etc.). So the "punchline" makes no sense at all.


That's the point. He's so hungry he could kill instead of waiting for something to die or be killed by some other creature.

It's like a vegetarian barbecuing hamster. It is a funny thing to say because it is unexpected.


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> Usual answer: "Soon".
> 
> I'm surprised that these markets were not turned on last night. They have been a long time in coming.


Me too! When they turn them on, I'll have to call to get switched to EA as they are on 77 and none of us here are.


----------



## James Long

The conversation that spun away from the actual topic of this thread has been moved to a thread of its own in the regulatory forum ...
Are broadcast networks needed? (spin off conversation)

Let's see if we can keep this thread on the topic of DISH carriage of PBS-HD.


----------



## HarveyLA

James Long said:


> The conversation that spun away from the actual topic of this thread has been moved to a thread of its own in the regulatory forum ...
> Are broadcast networks needed? (spin off conversation)
> 
> Let's see if we can keep this thread on the topic of DISH carriage of PBS-HD.


Thank You!
And on the subject of the original topic, what is likely to happen at the court hearing on July 22? Here are some possible scenarios.

The judge is inclined to deny the request for an immediate restraining order, setting a date for another hearing and asking for more information from both sides. After all, interfering with a law passed by Congress is no trivial matter. And, the advanced timetable doesn't kick in until the end of the year. Dish argues, but there are only a few days left to take advantage of the "escape clause" in the STELA law (signing of a private agreement with APTS that would supersede the timetable laid out in STELA).

In this earlier report, DISH said this was the reason for court filing now:

_DISH filed for an injunction last week in Nevada, where it is incorporated, because it is facing a July 27 deadline for coming to carriage terms with 30 noncom stations or triggering a speeded-up..timetable for carriage of all noncommercial signals in any market where it carries any stations in HD._

The judge says, well, you've had several years to negotiate an agreement. The fact that you haven't isn't my problem. Dish says, we may be able to reach an agreement if you give us a little more time.

The judge says..
A. Sorry. No immediate postponement of STELA. (Dish then has five days to decide whether to take whatever agreement APTS has offered, or continue the lawsuit against the FCC to overturn the STELA provision, which is probably a real uphill battle)

B. Okay, postponement granted until the next court hearing when more information is available.

In all scenarios, I see Dish losing the lawsuit before the end of the year. Does all this convince Dish to go for the private agreement, whatever it is?
The great unknown, but in my opinion, not very likely!


----------



## James Long

An injunction issued now would allow DISH to introduce new HD markets without their PBS-HD. We would see that uplink activity noted earlier in the thread reversed and the several pending HD markets turned on without their PBS-HD. If the injunction is refused then DISH has to make the hard choice of adding these markets with PBS-HD or not at all. Keeping in mind that they have to go back through ALL of the previously released HD markets and add the local PBS-HD before the deadlines given (half within a few months).

The law strengthens APTS' negotiating position ... perhaps unfairly. Now they can pretty much demand anything they want using the federal government as leverage. "Meet our demands or fill your satellite and backhauls with feeds of our affilitate stations." Without the injunction DISH will have to weigh the cost of agreement against the cost of carriage.

I don't know how compelling DISH's argument is ... but we will soon see. An injunction would do little harm so I wouldn't rule it out.


----------



## HarveyLA

_An injunction issued now would allow DISH to introduce new HD markets without their PBS-HD._

It's not clear whether DISH is asking for a freeze on that particular requirement (which says any new markets added must have PBS in HD). I haven't seen the exact legal document anywhere. But according to news reports, It is not all of STELA's PBS timetable that DISH wants halted. The only provision mentioned is the requirement to provide 50% PBS markets in HD by the end of this year and the remaining 50% by the end of next year.

Dish still has to meet the preexisting FCC benchmark that it does not dispute, which calls for all HD locals in 30% of markets by next February, an increase of 15%. The newly added PBS-HD stations could go towards that quota depending on whether other locals in those markets also become all HD. Dish loves to go for the very smallest markets possible, as it did to meet the first deadline this past February.


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> Dish loves to go for the very smallest markets possible, as it did to meet the first deadline this past February.


And that's the problem with the rule. Markets with a lot of HD stations could be the last to see all of their locals in HD. Markets with no non-network HD stations already count toward the quota. It makes sense to use the markets that require the least bandwidth to meet the quota.

In my market there are eight stations ... three are low power with the two HD channels carried in SD and one SD only not carried at all. Five are full power ... the three that are major networks are carried in HD. One is SD only and the final one is PBS. To carry all the HD in my market DISH would have to add the two LD stations and PBS-HD.

I don't believe low power HD carriage is required (could be wrong) and my PBS is odd ... they air the national APTS feed on .1 and do all local programming on .2. DISH currently airs the .2 feed (which matches what they aired in analog). If DISH moved over to the HD feed in my market I would lose the local PBS programming. (DirecTV carries all six HD channels, including the low powers. They carry both PBS feeds.)


----------



## HarveyLA

_And that's the problem with the rule. Markets with a lot of HD stations could be the last to see all of their locals in HD. _

Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the APTS and DISH to strike a deal adding the top markets first in PBS-HD, covering the most number of people, and give Dish some partial relief on the satellite capacity issue they claim they have? They still have a few days to do so (pending the outcome of the court hearing next week).


----------



## James Long

That doesn't help DISH with the "everything in HD" requirement. Adding small markets kills two birds with one stone ...

If I were DISH I'd reach the 1/3rds goal with medium sized markets (big enough to be in HD but not have more than one or two non-network HD stations) and meet the 1/2 PBS goal by adding in the largest markets (where more people are served). That would leave a lot of markets in the middle that have "too many" HD stations to uplink but not enough viewers to make it worthwhile.


----------



## phrelin

I'm still having trouble piecing together information on which PBS stations in DMA's are HD and offer some local programming, but it appears that the number Dish is going to have to cope with is going to be something less than, but close to, the actual number of DMA's - 210 - with some stations serving more than one DMA and some DMA's having more than one.

The thing is 50% of the population is in the largest 25 DMA's. About 75% of the population is in the top 70 out of 210 (⅓). Had Dish prepared by negotiation to do those along with the five primary commercial broadcast networks, there likely would be no problem today.

Instead I live in the 6th largest DMA with no PBS HD or The CW HD, both of which have more regular prime-time viewers than any station in the bottom third of the DMA's. Of course, I have no idea how that correlates to Dish customers.


----------



## HarveyLA

Some more details about what's been going on behind the scenes, thanks to John Eggerton who's been really on top of this story. Here's what hasn't been heard before: 
1. Dish's "last best offer" was made in December according to APTS, which appears to be no real offer at all.
2. Dish says it has had to put HD local expansion of major networks on hold in ten markets because of the "unresolved" mandate to carry PBS-HD locals. (Unresolved apparently referring to the Dish lawsuit against FCC).
3. Dish accuses APTS of not wanting to make a deal for "30 stations", the minimum required under a private agreement, because it finds the STELA timetable better.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/454635-Dish_Rolls_Dice_in_Nevada.php?rssid=20212

_The second-biggest U.S. satellite-TV provider must, by July 27, have reached carriage terms with at least 30 noncommercial stations. If not, under a provision in the Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization and Extension Act (STELA), Dish faces a speeded-up timetable (by the end of next year) for carriage of all noncommercial signals in any market where it carries any stations in HD.

The APTS has an incentive not to make a deal for those 30 stations, according to Dish, because failure to reach that 30-station mark triggers a carry-one, carry-all provision in the bill.

"Carrying all" would mean broadcasting more than 150 noncommercial stations in HD by 2011.

APTS interim CEO Lonna Thompson said the group has always been willing to negotiate, citing deals with DirecTV and cable.

APTS did not consider Dish's last, best offer in December to be a "meaningful one," though, as Dish only promised to use "commercially reasonable efforts to accelerate compliance with the FCC's carry one, carry all rules for noncommercial educational stations," she said.

STELA has already put a crimp in Dish's business plans, which had been based on the FCC's 2008 timetable for phasing in HD carriage of all local TV stations, including noncommercial ones, by 2013.

Dish said it completed equipment installs and fiber upgrades to launch NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox stations in HD in 10 more markets earlier this month - but put those plans on hold for two or three months because of the unresolved noncommercial mandate._


----------



## rasheed

HarveyLA said:


> 3. Dish accuses APTS of not wanting to make a deal for "30 stations", the minimum required under a private agreement, because it finds the STELA timetable better.


I am not sure APTS should bother making a deal either. Aside from some of the tactics Dish will do to delay HD (likely to lose HD sensitive customers to other distributors), it seems the STELA force will get PBS HD faster..'eventually'.

Rasheed


----------



## HarveyLA

_I am not sure APTS should bother making a deal either._

Unless the STELA provision could be changed by joint agreement to 50% of estimated viewers by the end of 2010 and the remaining 50% by the end of 2011 instead of the current "50% of markets..etc.) This would benefit both sides. APTS would get more people served, sooner, and Dish would need to use less of its satellite capacity by the end of 2010. 50% of markets is likely to mean a lot of small markets, as previously pointed out.
It was also pointed out that 50% of the population is in the largest 25 DMA's. 
So Dish would only have to add 30 PBS-HD locals at the end of this year instead of half of them. (small secondary noncoms could be eliminated from this formula)


----------



## HarveyLA

*Judge denies Dish's request for an injunction*

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/455119-DISH_Court_Won_t_Delay_Noncom_HD_Mandate.php

DISH: Court Won't Delay Noncom HD Mandate
Network says mandate violates First and Fifth Amendment rights
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 7/22/2010 4:20:55 PM
A Nevada U.S. district court has denied DISH Network's request for a preliminary injunction against implementation of the noncommercial station HD carriage mandate in the satellite reauthorization law, according to a DISH spokesperson.

"We are disappointed with the decision, and intend to appeal," said DISH in a statement. "We believe that our customers should be the ones who decide what they want to watch on TV and how they want to watch it. We also believe that it is important to defend those fundamental First Amendment rights."

The court heard DISH's argument Thursday and ruled immediately, given the short time frame for action before the mandate kicked in.


----------



## James Long

An expected result ... now let's see what DISH does.


----------



## HarveyLA

APTS IS PLEASED, OF COURSE
http://www.apts.org/

They have also included a link to their legal argument presented to the judge. It is rather long, but some of it is pretty interesting.

http://www.apts.org/upload/DISH-v-FCC-APTS-Amicus-Motion-and-Brief.pdf

I've only done a quick scan so far, but they strongly refute the idea that this is a first amendment argument. They also point out that Dish is not denying that it has the available satellite capacity, instead referring to capacity that is being kept in reserve for future use and it would be unwise to assign it now. Included as "exhibit 1" at the end is congressional testimony from the APTS president who said one of the issues involved carriage of stations' multicasting (carriage of several programs at once on the digital broadcast). They are pressing for this. "Exhibit 2" is a letter Dish sent to the APTS in December 2009 with its "final offer." I gather for the most part Dish did make a commitment to carry stations WETA, KQED, KRMA, WGBH, WNET and KCET. The language is rather complicated. I suppose you would have to be an expert in this field to figure out exactly what it all means. But I do see that Dish would use "commercially reasonable efforts.." to add noncommercial HD stations.. no commitment there. It also indicates some sort of mechanism for multicasting to be sent to Dish receivers. If anyone else wants to sift through all this and find some significant new info.... go ahead! Not that it matters now, because with Dish appealing, the deadline for a private agreement will expire in a few days.

___________________________________________________________ 
APTS Pleased with Court's Rejection of DISH Network's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

WASHINGTON - July 22, 2010 - The Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) expressed satisfaction with the decision by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to deny DISH Network's motion for a preliminary injunction in the case of DISH Network v. FCC.

The court, earlier today, rejected DISH Network's assertion that it would suffer irreparable harm by complying with the public television local high-definition (HD) carriage requirements enacted in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA). In denying the preliminary injunction, the court was not persuaded by DISH Network's contention that it would likely succeed on the merits of its claim.

"APTS is pleased that the court understood that requiring DISH to carry public television stations' local HD signals is not an undue hardship to DISH. Simply put, there is no compelling justification for DISH's continued discriminatory treatment of local public television stations in those markets where it is carrying commercial stations' HD content," said Interim President and CEO Lonna Thompson.

Thompson continued, "DISH customers are being denied access to public television HD programming, and as Congress stated, 'This constitutes discriminatory treatment of locally-owned and controlled stations that serve their communities with high-quality, local, educational and cultural content.'"

Unlike DISH Network, satellite carrier DIRECTV entered into a voluntary agreement two years ago with APTS and PBS to carry the HD signal of every public television station in markets DIRECTV serves with local HD. To date, DIRECTV has launched 119 public television local HD channels. In enacting STELA, Congress rebuked DISH Network for its discriminatory refusal to carry local public television stations. In response, DISH Network filed suit against the government to enjoin the remedial provisions of STELA.

In an amicus brief filed on Tuesday, July 20, APTS opposed DISH Network's request for a preliminary injunction. To view the amicus brief, prepared by former APTS employee Andrew Cotlar, click here.

Thompson concluded, "APTS will continue to work with the Department of Justice in this lawsuit to ensure that all Americans receive access to public television's high-quality, local services, including HD programming, through satellite."


----------



## phrelin

It's a very persuasive brief, but to me the most difficult statement for Dish to argue against legally is:


> Dish has not challenged the validity of the underlying HD carriage requirement, which is the same for commercial and noncommercial stations, save the timing of the obligation. In this regard, Dish is asking the Court the incredible. It is asking the Court to rule that the same carriage requirements that would occur for commercial stations later, should be declared unconstitutional for noncommercial stations now.


However, I didn't really understand this:


> In 2005 APTS, PBS, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) reached a landmark agreement which ensured that the nation's largest cable providers would carry up to four digital streams, including HD and multicast, of each public television station entitled to carriage on a given system. ...In 2006, APTS and PBS reached a similar national agreement with Verizon for carriage of the full digital offerings, including local HD and multicast, of local public television stations on Verizon's fiber-based telecommunications platform, FiOS. Then in 2007, APTS and PBS reached a digital carriage agreement with the American Cable Association (ACA), which represents 900 smaller cable systems that serve more than seven million subscribers in all 50 states.
> 
> Also in 2007, APTS, PBS and DIRECTV reached a landmark agreement which allows DIRECTV's nearly 17 million subscribers to access a broad array of public television's digital services. We realized that our agreements with cable and Verizon were unique to those providers and we worked with DIRECTV on creative solutions that recognized their capacity limitations, ultimately ensuring that subscribers have access to the myriad of content and services provided by the local stations while accommodating their capacity concerns. The agreement stipulates that in each market in which DIRECTV provides high-definition (HD) local channels, they will carry either an HD signal or two standard-definition (SO) streams from each station, at the station's option. In addition, DIRECTV will carry two national SO feeds featuring educational programming that is differentiated from the station's primary streams, with local stations' identification included on the Electronic Programming Guide. In the future, DIRECTV will provide public television stations the ability to offer additional localized programming through dedicated on-demand services to its new MPEG4 receivers, which are equipped with broadband connections. Finally, in markets where DIRECTV is not yet offering local broadcast signals, DIRECTV will provide stations with marketing materials regarding an offer for an antenna and ATSC tuner so many customers can gain seamless access to local signals over-the air.


It's clear to me that the December 7, 2009, letter from R. Stanton Dodge, Dish's Executive Vice President and General Counsel, to Lawrence Sidman, President and Chief Executive Officer of APTS, that begins with an off-putting "Dear Larry" despite its otherwise formality, was more than "a day late and a dollar short" and reflects Dish's failure to join the party as a serious participant back in 2005, which many of us suspected.

___________

EDIT: I also gained some information about numbers:


> Across the nation, 172 public television licensees operate 377 stations and over 600 low power translators to deliver free, noncommercial educational programming to all communities in the United States. Of the 172 licensees, 19 are operated by state commissions, 57 are operated by universities and colleges, 88 are operated by locally-chartered 501(c)(3) nonprofit community groups, and eight are operated by school districts and municipalities. In addition, all public television stations not affiliated with governmental entities possess community advisory boards that allow direct feedback from the community regarding performance and adherence to public television's mission.


----------



## adkinsjm

DirecTV hasn't done much to live up to the agreement. Where are those two national SD channels? What about PBS in HD in the Bismarck market or several others where D* offers HD locals. D* hasn't lived up to its agreement, so why should E* have to comply? Even E* offers PBS in HD in Bismarck and Fargo.


----------



## Greg Bimson

adkinsjm said:


> DirecTV hasn't done much to live up to the agreement.


That is a matter of interpretation. As APTS has not sued DirecTV, I'd believe that DirecTV has lived up to the agreement.


adkinsjm said:


> Where are those two national SD channels?


From one news source, it appears the national SD channels could have been packaged as the subchannels:But wait, there's more: DirecTV will also carry two standard-definition national channels yet to be determined and work with PBS on national and local video-on-demand offerings.

The deal does not include any commitment to carry the multicast channels of local stations, as did a deal between noncommercial broadcasters and the cable industry, but the two national channels can be branded with each local-market HD station -- say, "WETA's Space Channel" -- in DirecTV's electronic program guides.​


adkinsjm said:


> What about PBS in HD in the Bismarck market or several others where D* offers HD locals. D* hasn't lived up to its agreement, so why should E* have to comply?


How do you know DirecTV hasn't lived up to the agreement? Maybe there are technical difficulties prohibiting DirecTV from carrying the PBS in North Dakota?


adkinsjm said:


> Even E* offers PBS in HD in Bismarck and Fargo.


And that is Dish Network's choice. Dish Network could carry every PBS channel nationwide in HD under all current regulations and schemes, but they don't want to.


----------



## runner861

adkinsjm said:


> DirecTV hasn't done much to live up to the agreement. Where are those two national SD channels? What about PBS in HD in the Bismarck market or several others where D* offers HD locals. D* hasn't lived up to its agreement, so why should E* have to comply? Even E* offers PBS in HD in Bismarck and Fargo.


Whether or not DirectTV has or has not lived up to its public television carriage obligations (those created by law or by contract) has legally no significance with regard to the public television carriage obligations of Dish. I am not sure in what way DirectTV may not have lived up to its carriage obligations, but it has no bearing on the situation with Dish.


----------



## James Long

*The issue so far:*
I realize DirecTV and cable negotiated their own deals long before STELA was written to force DISH to sign a contract by date certain or be forced to follow an accelerated carriage schedule. (Yes, STELA applies to DirecTV but they have an agreement that makes them immune to that schedule. So despite not being named in the law this particular part of STELA was directed at DISH.)

Unless an agreement is made by date certain the timetable comes into play and by the end of the year DISH must carry the HD feed of PBS in 50% of the markets they offer in HD. By prior agreement (a joint proposal from DISH and DirecTV that was accepted by the FCC) the commercial station phase in sets targets of all available HD in 15% of markets offered in HD as of last February with the next milestone being all available HD in 30% of markets offered in HD coming up on February 17th, 2011.

Of the markets DISH offers in HD, 50% of those markets must have the HD feeds of all non-comm stations like PBS by the end of the year (eg: 10 of 20 markets) and 30% of those markets must have the HD feeds of all commercial stations (eg: 6 of 20 markets) by February 2011. The thresholds only apply to markets carried in HD. If DISH only carries 20 markets in HD the numbers above work. But the more markets DISH has in HD the more full markets and non-comms they need to carry. (eg: 80 markets means 40 have all their non-comms and 24 have all their commercial stations by the next milestone date.)

And it isn't just the stations in HD that DISH has to be concerned with. They have to be prepared to carry the HD signal of every qualified station in the market ... whether or not they ever have one. If there are nine qualified broadcasters in the market nine HD slots need to be set aside - even if only broadcaster is in HD. Although DISH would be unlikely to add such a market choosing a market such New York with 19 qualified broadcasters as a 100% HD market takes more space than choosing a market such as Lafayette, Indiana, which has one qualified broadcaster. It doesn't matter how many of those 19 are in HD ... DISH has to be prepared to carry them.

Choosing the smallest markets helps DISH meet the milestones quicker. Probably not what APTS or the consumer wants but the law is forcing DISH's hand. And following the law will see a lot of small markets with 100% HD carriage and big markets waiting for the 2013 deadline (where all markets carried in HD must have all of their channels carried in HD).

*Subchannels:*
I'm a little lost about the subchannel carriage issue. What subchannels are required to be carried? I thought that only the primary channel needed to be rebroadcast but it seems that APTS and their deals with cable and DirecTV deal with subchannel carriage. Is this a "bonus" being offered to APTS in exchange for not needing to carry everything in HD immediately or is there some law or ruling requiring subcarrier carriage that I have missed?

If DISH makes no agreement with APTS and simply follows the laws as written what are their subchannel carriage obligations?


----------



## runner861

I am not aware of anything regarding mandatory subchannel carriage. However, an outside agreement could encompass subchannel carriage, at least as far as I know.

Have you seen a codified version of STELA, or are you reading the Congressional bill? Seeing a codified version would make it easier to read and understand. I haven't seen a codified version yet.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> I am not aware of anything regarding mandatory subchannel carriage. However, an outside agreement could encompass subchannel carriage, at least as far as I know.


That's the thought ... the agreements seem to be protecting against a law/rule that hasn't been written.


> Have you seen a codified version of STELA, or are you reading the Congressional bill? Seeing a codified version would make it easier to read and understand. I haven't seen a codified version yet.


The latest version of 17 USC I could find is a "2008" version published Friday, November 06, 2009. The latest 47 USC that I could find is a "2008" version published Wednesday, March 24, 2010. Both are based on changes made through 110th Congress, 2nd Session.

USC with changes as of 111th Congress, 1st Session is available up through chapter 27. I wouldn't expect to see STELA changes until the middle of 2011. They will at least have to wait until the end of this session to see what else changes.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/downloadPDF.shtml

I've built my own taking the "2008" version and making the changes myself. It is a tedious project and I may have missed something somewhere - but the work in progress is at http://jameslong.name/stela.html .


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> That's the thought ... the agreements seem to be protecting against a law/rule that hasn't been written.
> The latest version of 17 USC I could find is a "2008" version published Friday, November 06, 2009. The latest 47 USC that I could find is a "2008" version published Wednesday, March 24, 2010. Both are based on changes made through 110th Congress, 2nd Session.
> 
> USC with changes as of 111th Congress, 1st Session is available up through chapter 27. I wouldn't expect to see STELA changes until the middle of 2011. They will at least have to wait until the end of this session to see what else changes.
> 
> http://uscode.house.gov/download/downloadPDF.shtml
> 
> I've built my own taking the "2008" version and making the changes myself. It is a tedious project and I may have missed something somewhere - but the work in progress is at http://jameslong.name/stela.html .


Excellent work. It sure helps clear things up in my mind to read those sections in context.

I haven't counted the DMAs with Dish HD, but I think the last time the EKB HD list was updated there were 147. It seems to me that Charlie is looking at a deadline that affects at least 80 DMAs. I assume he's starting to match transponders to DMAs as I have a hunch the appeals courts are going to take a dim view of his case.

The language is very simple:


> ...an eligible satellite carrier is providing, under section 122 of title 17, United States Code, any secondary transmissions in high definition format to subscribers located within the local market of a television broadcast station of a primary transmission made by that station, then such satellite carrier shall carry the signals in high-definition format of qualified noncommercial educational television stations located within that local market in accordance with the following schedule:
> 
> (i) By December 31, 2010, in at least 50 percent of the markets in which such satellite carrier provides such secondary transmissions in high definition format.
> 
> (ii) By December 31, 2011, in every market in which such satellite carrier provides such secondary transmissions in high definition format.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I haven't counted the DMAs with Dish HD, but I think the last time the EKB HD list was updated there were 147. It seems to me that Charlie is looking at a deadline that affects at least 80 DMAs.


It looks like 152 now (I may have miscounted) with 10 more waiting for release. I have not done a full audit.

The agreement with the FCC for 100% carriage of HD requires all commercial channels in HD in 23 of 152 markets (25 of 162) with an increase to 46 of 152 (or 49 of 162) markets by next February. The STELA induced non-comm requirement requires 76 of 152 markets or 81 of 162 markets by the end of the year.

Hopefully someone at DISH is working out how to comply with the law by the benchmark. Adding new markets with their PBS in HD helps raise the percentage but also raised the number of markets that need a HD carried.


----------



## runner861

You have done some excellent work "codifying" the STELA language. It is very difficult to read it out of context.

As far as I know, Dish has never stated that they lack the capacity to comply with the PBS carriage requirements. On the other hand, I would think (although I don't know) that every satellite carrier would want to have some unused transponders. That way, if some transponders carrying active channels failed, the unused transponders could be activated immediately, in order to avoid gaps in service and/or carriage.

However, I may be wrong on any of these points.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> As far as I know, Dish has never stated that they lack the capacity to comply with the PBS carriage requirements. On the other hand, I would think (although I don't know) that every satellite carrier would want to have some unused transponders. That way, if some transponders carrying active channels failed, the unused transponders could be activated immediately, in order to avoid gaps in service and/or carriage.


Emergency reserve is part of the normal operations of satellite carriers. Back in 2008 when the FCC set the phase in schedule for commercial channels they relied on a joint filing from DISH and DirecTV that outlined the problem and requested the long phase in that the FCC agreed to. Apparently that wasn't fast enough for those who pushed for non-comms to get a more aggressive phase in via STELA. That is what DISH may not be prepared for (without dropping plans to serve new markets).

In any case, DirecTV and DISH looked at their capacities and launch plans and proposed a schedule that was acceptable to the FCC. Those plans are for "carry one carry all" carriage in all markets where they have local HD. Both carriers plan to have that capacity by February 2013, not the end of 2012. Capacity that not only allows for carriage of stations currently in HD, but for all stations in those markets (since a station could convert to HD at any time) and the "normal operations" of having some emergency reserve (so markets do not have to be dropped if a spotbeam fails).

The 1st amendment argument DISH used was a failure because the law isn't content based ... it is license based. I agree with DISH that it is unfair that non-comm stations are being rolled over to HD on a more aggressive schedule than their commercial counterparts. But I don't see a constitutional grounds to challenge the law.

Do they have the capacity to comply? Probably. I expect they will have to eat into some of that "emergency reserve". New markets being added with their non-comm HDs will help DISH meet that goal (while annoying customers in markets where adding HD PBS would make more business sense). Expect lots of complaints of why Paducah gets PBS in HD and Chicago doesn't. (Although getting the 50% by Dec 31st will require at least 30 markets to have all non-comm HDs carried and not all commercial stations, the Chicago market has several non-comms and it is easier to comply in markets with only one station.)

Remembering that complying is having space for all qualified channels to be carried in HD even if they are not HD.


----------



## James Long

*DISH Avoids STELA Noncom Mandate
Strikes independent HD carriage deal with 30 noncom stations
John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 7/29/2010 4:00:52 PM*
http://www.multichannel.com/article/455383-DISH_Avoids_STELA_Noncom_Mandate.php

Dish Network has managed to avoid the expedited noncommercial high-definition carriage mandate in the newly reauthorized satellite distant signal blanket license law by striking an independent HD distribution agreement with at least 30 noncommercial stations, the company confirmed to Multichannel News.

But it still plans to challenge the law that forced it to strike that deal.

. . .

The No. 2 DBS provider had tried to negotiate a blanket deal with the Association of Public Television Stations, but had failed to do so. The pact was not with APTS, which represents noncoms nationwide, but does include a geographically diverse group of stations, according to the company, which had no comment on when that HD carriage would begin. The law only requred that the deals be struck by July 27. 
____________________

Something makes me believe that these are individual deals with 30 stations (or groups totaling 30 stations) and not a deal with a group of 30 stations.


----------



## HarveyLA

Why the mystery over which stations are involved? Very strange. Those stations are not going to be very popular among their fellow noncoms who were looking forward to the accelerated schedule under STELA. They just killed it off by deserting the ranks of APTS, delaying HD for many others. Members of Congress who pushed this provision through, apparently never saw this possibility coming. If the agreement is only with small markets, (that might be on Dish's list for next February under the previous timetable anyway) then Congress was outmaneuvered by Dish.

However: Stations in the top markets might have a strong incentive to desert APTS and strike a separate deal, since they probably realized they'd be last to get HD on Dish under STELA (end of 2011). And that would be to Dish's advantage, giving PBS-HD to the most number of viewers sooner rather than later. They must be mindful of the competition, whether they admit it or not.

I imagine this will have to be filed with the FCC, so it will come out sooner or later.

footnote: I just saw my first PBS show in HD ever (Paul McCartney at the White House) and that was only because I am in a vacation rental carrying the Seattle PBS station in HD from DirecTV. It is sad to think how much I and many other Dish subscribers have been missing.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> Something makes me believe that these are individual deals with 30 stations (or groups totaling 30 stations) and not a deal with a group of 30 stations.


Precisely. Which of course is counter to what the law states. The carriage agreement had to be with an entity that controls 30 or more stations, so if it isn't APTS, who is it?

That would explain why Dish Network has to fight the law in the Nevada court still; the agreement probably isn't valid to overcome the mandate for non-commericial stations in HD.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> *DISH Avoids STELA Noncom Mandate
> Strikes independent HD carriage deal with 30 noncom stations
> John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 7/29/2010 4:00:52 PM*
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/455383-DISH_Avoids_STELA_Noncom_Mandate.php
> 
> Dish Network has managed to avoid the expedited noncommercial high-definition carriage mandate in the newly reauthorized satellite distant signal blanket license law by striking an independent HD distribution agreement with at least 30 noncommercial stations, the company confirmed to Multichannel News.
> 
> But it still plans to challenge the law that forced it to strike that deal.
> 
> . . .
> 
> The No. 2 DBS provider had tried to negotiate a blanket deal with the Association of Public Television Stations, but had failed to do so. The pact was not with APTS, which represents noncoms nationwide, but does include a geographically diverse group of stations, according to the company, which had no comment on when that HD carriage would begin. The law only requred that the deals be struck by July 27.
> ____________________
> 
> Something makes me believe that these are individual deals with 30 stations (or groups totaling 30 stations) and not a deal with a group of 30 stations.


Now that Dish has struck a deal, it is possible that the Court of Appeal will dismiss the appeal as moot--no case or controversy. Is Dish actually seeking to enter into an agreement, then breach it? I doubt that Dish would do that, although who knows? But if they have reached an agreement, and they don't intend to breach it, then they don't really have any further case or controversy.

Of course, if the agreement doesn't meet the requirements of STELA, then the appeal goes on. But then what is the purpose of the agreement?


----------



## James Long

The attached agreement from the APTS amicus brief linked earlier in the thread is what has me suspicious. I'm wondering if DISH got thirty positive responses and are calling that an agreement with thirty stations.

Whatever DISH has done, if they are confident that it meets the definition of the agreement required by STELA to get out of the advanced timetable I would hope that they would announce such an agreement and not leave it as something a reporter had to dig up through his sources.

Continuing to fight the law ... well DISH likes to fight on principle. They don't believe they should have to make an agreement with 30 stations. This is an action that they were forced to do. Whether they have complied or not they want to fight the requirement to comply.


----------



## tsmacro

I guess I must be lucky and live in PBS heaven or something. Between my antenna and my Dish I receive PBS programming from four different cities. At any given point thanks to sub-channels I think I have something like 13 different ways to watch PBS programming and 3 of those options are in HD. If there was a way I could share my bounty w/ my less fortunate brethren i'd gladly share!


----------



## HarveyLA

I found a version of the bill that says it's the version passed by the House and Senate. That is still apparently not the final bill because it refers to a 150 day window for a private agreement, not 60 days. However, the rest of the language is probably the same. It clearly refers to "a carriage contract" that governs carriage of at least 30 stations, NOT "carriage contracts." But what is to stop Dish from preparing "a carriage contract" and getting 30 stations to sign it? Previous press releases from APTS all seemed to assume that Dish would have to reach an agreement with it, along with statements from members of Congress. Well, as I commented earlier, Dish may have outmaneuvered all of them with their clever attorneys. We will see! The alleged agreement, I would suspect, does not automatically void the lawsuit, since Dish claims it made the agreement under duress and in violation of its constitutional rights.

"Eligible" refers to a satellite carrier that eligible, (translation: " required"), to follow the accelerated noncom-HD timetable.
__________________________________________________________

''(2) ELIGIBLE SATELLITE CARRIER.-The term 'eligible satellite
carrier' means any satellite carrier that is not a party
to a carriage contract that-
''(A) governs carriage of at least 30 qualified noncommercial
educational television stations; and
''(B) is in force and effect within 150 days after the
date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension
and Localism Act of 2010.'';

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s3333enr.txt.pdf


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> I found a version of the bill that says it's the version passed by the House and Senate. That is still apparently not the final bill because it refers to a 150 day window for a private agreement, not 60 days.


The public law version also has the 150 days as noted.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ175.111.pdf

The "in force and in effect in 150 days" ... does that mean the stations in agreement must be carried by 150 days after? Confusing.



> It clearly refers to "a carriage contract" that governs carriage of at least 30 stations, NOT "carriage contracts." But what is to stop Dish from preparing "a carriage contract" and getting 30 stations to sign it?


That's my thought too. I have not seen an announcement of the agreement or APTS reaction.


----------



## runner861

HarveyLA said:


> I found a version of the bill that says it's the version passed by the House and Senate. That is still apparently not the final bill because it refers to a 150 day window for a private agreement, not 60 days. However, the rest of the language is probably the same. It clearly refers to "a carriage contract" that governs carriage of at least 30 stations, NOT "carriage contracts." But what is to stop Dish from preparing "a carriage contract" and getting 30 stations to sign it? Previous press releases from APTS all seemed to assume that Dish would have to reach an agreement with it, along with statements from members of Congress. Well, as I commented earlier, Dish may have outmaneuvered all of them with their clever attorneys. We will see! The alleged agreement, I would suspect, does not automatically void the lawsuit, since Dish claims it made the agreement under duress and in violation of its constitutional rights.
> 
> "Eligible" refers to a satellite carrier that eligible, (translation: " required"), to follow the accelerated noncom-HD timetable.
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> ''(2) ELIGIBLE SATELLITE CARRIER.-The term 'eligible satellite
> carrier' means any satellite carrier that is not a party
> to a carriage contract that-
> ''(A) governs carriage of at least 30 qualified noncommercial
> educational television stations; and
> ''(B) is in force and effect within 150 days after the
> date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension
> and Localism Act of 2010.'';
> 
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s3333enr.txt.pdf


If Dish has entered into an agreement that satisfies STELA, even if Dish says that it is in violation of its constitutional rights, there really is no more "case or controversy" and the court may dismiss the appeal on its own motion. If Dish continues with the lawsuit, and the Court of Appeal allows it, effectively what Dish is saying is that it intends to abandon or breach its agreement with the stations. The stations are unlikely to sign an agreement, knowing that the other side intends to breach it. Plus, if Dish does breach the contract with the stations, they will sue Dish.

Really, I don't see how Dish can have it both ways. Either enter into an agreement that satisfies STELA, or accept the deadlines in STELA and comply, or pursue a lawsuit. There are three options, but, as I see it, choosing one option excludes the other two.

Of course, I am really speaking in the dark because I don't know what agreement, if any, Dish has entered into.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> The public law version also has the 150 days as noted.
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ175.111.pdf
> 
> The "in force and in effect in 150 days" ... does that mean the stations in agreement must be carried by 150 days after? Confusing.
> 
> That's my thought too. I have not seen an announcement of the agreement or APTS reaction.


I do not believe that the contract being "in force and in effect in 150 days" means that all the stations have to be carried. The actual carriage dates and requirements would be included in the contract. It just means the contract must be finalized and enacted within 150 days. For example, Dish and some stations could agree that Dish will make payments to the stations in exchange for delaying their carriage. The stations would not be carried, but the contract would be in force and effect.


----------



## HarveyLA

_If Dish continues with the lawsuit, and the Court of Appeal allows it, effectively what Dish is saying is that it intends to abandon or breach its agreement with the stations. The stations are unlikely to sign an agreement, knowing that the other side intends to breach it. Plus, if Dish does breach the contract with the stations, they will sue Dish._

Dish says they did sign an agreement already. There might be a clause saying the stations will hold Dish harmless if a court action voids the STELA provision. Everyone knows that is not likely to happen anyway. But your point on this convoluted logic is well taken, and it casts further suspicion on the supposed "agreement." If it is legitimate, it will have to be filed with the FCC as proof of compliance, and then it will most likely undergo legal review by the Justice Dept. At some point, the details will have to be made public.


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> But your point on this convoluted logic is well taken, and it casts further suspicion on the supposed "agreement." If it is legitimate, it will have to be filed with the FCC as proof of compliance, and then it will most likely undergo legal review by the Justice Dept. At some point, the details will have to be made public.


Has DirecTV filed their "agreement" with the FCC? Where in the law does it state that the agreement that prevents a satellite carrier from being "eligible" must be filed with anyone?

Someone will probably have to sue DISH to see the agreement. DISH officially isn't in non-compliance with STELA until January 1st. So it may be a while until DISH has to put up to tell APTS to shut up, so to speak.


----------



## HarveyLA

James Long said:


> Has DirecTV filed their "agreement" with the FCC? Where in the law does it state that the agreement that prevents a satellite carrier from being "eligible" must be filed with anyone?
> 
> Someone will probably have to sue DISH to see the agreement. DISH officially isn't in non-compliance with STELA until January 1st. So it may be a while until DISH has to put up to tell APTS to shut up, so to speak.


DirecTV's agreement was not a response to a law passed by Congress and enforced by the FCC- that is the difference. I don't know how the FCC deals with this, but they would be remiss if they did not collect information to show whether the law is being followed. That might not be until January 1, but the whole situation is complicated by the lawsuit, so it might have to be revealed sooner. I would think the Justice Dept. would want that information, as part of their case.

The John Eggerton article indicated that Rep. Eschoo is not questioning Dish's signing of 30 stations. She indicates they are complying with the court's order. Curious.

_"The court's ruling is a victory for consumers who deserve access to public broadcasting in the same high-quality as they receive commercial programming, " said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who was the driving force behind the noncom HD mandate in STELA. "While Dish is complying with the court's ruling by signing noncommercial stations, their decision to appeal is a disservice to their customers. The other major carriers offer PBS in high-definition and it's high-time Dish joins the fold."_


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> DirecTV's agreement was not a response to a law passed by Congress and enforced by the FCC- that is the difference. I don't know how the FCC deals with this, but they would be remiss if they did not collect information to show whether the law is being followed.


The FCC has not been instructed by Congress to do any such thing. If they do (on their own without support from the law) decide to "enforce" this they need to look at DirecTV equally. Read the law. That little bit of nothing is the guideline.



> The John Eggerton article indicated that Rep. Eschoo is not questioning Dish's signing of 30 stations. She indicates they are complying with the court's order. Curious.
> 
> _"The court's ruling is a victory for consumers who deserve access to public broadcasting in the same high-quality as they receive commercial programming, " said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who was the driving force behind the noncom HD mandate in STELA. "While Dish is complying with the court's ruling by signing noncommercial stations, their decision to appeal is a disservice to their customers. The other major carriers offer PBS in high-definition and it's high-time Dish joins the fold."_


She'll have to to a better job of writing the next anti-DISH law ... if she's still in office in four years. Otherwise her power is limited to making press statements and perhaps calling for a hearing on the matter (which she is not threatening).


----------



## HarveyLA

_The FCC has not been instructed by Congress to do any such thing. If they do (on their own without support from the law) decide to "enforce" this they need to look at DirecTV equally._

I did a quick check and found that the FCC has already proposed rulemaking to implement STELA.
And I found another source that said " The STELA requires the Commission to issue final rules in this proceeding on or before November 24, 2010."

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41b5a656-576d-44ad-b40f-42cd8f9020b4
____________________________________________________________________

FCC releases notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act
View original document | Send to colleague | Print
Wiley Rein LLP
Todd M. Stansbury and Shawn A. Bone

USA
July 27 2010
Wiley Rein LLP logo

On July 23, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA), which reauthorizes direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to deliver distant signals to unserved households through 2014. In addition to renewing satellite retransmission of distant signals for another five years, STELA changes existing law related to carriage of broadcast signals in other material respects. In particular, STELA:

Effectively lifts the court injunction that prohibited DISH Network from providing distant signals, in exchange for DISH providing local-into-local service in every DMA in the country;

Modifies the definition of, and testing procedures for, "unserved households";

Phases in protection for qualified multicast signals from imported duplicating signals;

Enhances DBS carriage rights of Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations;

Makes it easier for DBS operators to retransmit "significantly viewed" signals; and

Changes the formula for computing compulsory copyright fees paid by DBS and cable operators.

Comments are due 20 days after and reply comments are due 30 days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register. A copy of the NPRM is available here

________________________________________________________________________
As for the way the law was written, the private agreement refers to "30 stations," not 30 markets, percentage of markets.. etc. As we know, when presented with a "percentage of markets" requirement, Dish goes for the smallest markets to use the least amount of satellite capacity. Now maybe the 30 stations language was intentionally designed to encourage Dish to sign with big stations in large markets. It does not require all the PBS stations in a given market to be signed up in HD.
30 large market stations take up no more satellite space than 30 small stations in small markets. So, Dish would look at this and say "we can score the most points with the most number of subscribers by signing up large stations." Time will tell whether this theory won out. Another possibility, which I really hate to even consider, is that these are all small stations.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> The FCC has not been instructed by Congress to do any such thing. If they do (on their own without support from the law) decide to "enforce" this they need to look at DirecTV equally. Read the law. That little bit of nothing is the guideline.


The actual enforcement will be during the lawsuit in Nevada. The funny thing is that Dish Network is trying to get rid of this requirement:

''(2) ELIGIBLE SATELLITE CARRIER.-The term 'eligible satellite
carrier' means any satellite carrier that is not a party
to a carriage contract that-
''(A) governs carriage of at least 30 qualified noncommercial
educational television stations; and
''(B) is in force and effect within 150 days after the
date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension
and Localism Act of 2010.'';

And it is that requirement where APTS and others may be able to countersue if Dish Network actually does not have a "carriage contract that governs carriage of at least 30 qualified noncommercial educational television stations."


----------



## HarveyLA

Some interesting background: in February, APTS issued a news release urging Congress to pass STELA. It indicates a tentative agreement was reached with Dish, and submitted to the membership, which obviously rejected it. This is probably the same deal included in the link earlier in this thread as part of the APTS court filing (letter from Dish outlining the specifics).
That letter mentioned a number of PBS stations in major cities that Dish was promising to carry in HD.
________________________________________________________________________
APTS has worked diligently for the past nine months to reach an agreement with DISH that addresses
comprehensively carriage issues, including local public television stations’ HD signals. A tentative
agreement between the parties has been offered to APTS’ station membership for ratification. That
process is ongoing and will best be served by speedy enactment of STELA, which will provide stations
with a certain legislative outcome in the event an agreement is not ratified.


----------



## spear61

This is what happens when you say you don't have the capacity for the PBS stations and then sue the FCC.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1401A1.pdf


----------



## James Long

spear61 said:


> This is what happens when you say you don't have the capacity for the PBS stations and then sue the FCC.
> 
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1401A1.pdf


See existing thread on the satellite licensing issue:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=181919


----------



## HarveyLA

Here is the list of APTS member stations posted on the APTS web site. Since Dish said the mysterious agreement with 30 stations did not involve a deal with APTS, it's a good bet that none of the stations on this list are included, especially since they pay money to APTS to represent them.

http://www.apts.org/aboutAPTS/membership/index.cfm

APTS says its goal is to represent all of the noncoms (those that qualify for CPB govt. funding), But The fact is, it doesn't.

Just a few examples in California- KQED San Francisco is an APTS member (along with sister stations in San Jose and Monterey) but KVIE in Sacramento is not on the list.
In So. Calif., the two large L.A. area stations KCET and KOCE are APTS members, but San Diego's KPBS and San Bernardino station KVCR are not on the list.
Dish already is faced with adding all HD stations in an additional 15% of markets by next February, under the previous FCC agreement that Dish does not dispute. So, what is to prevent Dish from signing up the noncoms in those markets now, all on the same contract? If that is the case, the STELA provision seems to be worthless.


----------



## HarveyLA

A new article, this one in the Denver Business Journal, hints that Dish is prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Although Dish representatives are not quoted,the tone of the article suggests that the author got his background info. from Dish, which is based in his state of Colorado. 
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/08/23/story8.html?b=1282536000^3827041

The article says Dish is willing to lose some PBS viewers by allocating its precious local channel HD slots to stations carrying sports broadcasts, which more people want.

He also says, inaccurately,_ "A portion of STELA required Dish to offer at least 30 PBS stations in HD by July 27, which the broadcaster arranged to do even while filing its lawsuit."_

As we know, they were not required to start offering the service by July 27, only reach an agreement (with noncommercial stations, not necessarily PBS or APTS affiliates). And of course, he doesn't even question the glaring contradiction we have discussed here: If they signed an agreement, why continue the lawsuit? (all the way to the Supreme Court). The complete silence over this so-called agreement, and which stations are involved, has continued since John Eggerton reported it nearly a month ago. And I continue to suspect that the 30-station provision in STELA turned out to be so full of loopholes it is meaningless for all practical purposes (at least the purposes of those who want PBS in HD in the top markets!) Probably, there won't be any definitive word on all this until it gets back in court again, whenever that might be.


----------



## runner861

If Dish loses at the Ninth Circuit, there is no guarantee the issue will get to the Supreme Court. It is discretionary whether the Court will accept the case.

On another point, there was an op-ed piece in the LA Times yesterday about PBS. It basically said that PBS's time has come and gone and that PBS should be replaced with a satellite-distributed feed nationwide. It talks about how the PBS stations are undergoing endless pledge drives and losing money and viewers in the process, but how a nationwide feed that satellite and cable companies paid to carry would be highly profitable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shakely-kcet-20100822,0,530153.story


----------



## phrelin

runner861 said:


> If Dish loses at the Ninth Circuit, there is no guarantee the issue will get to the Supreme Court. It is discretionary whether the Court will accept the case.
> 
> On another point, there was an op-ed piece in the LA Times yesterday about PBS. It basically said that PBS's time has come and gone and should be replaced with a satellite-distributed feed nationwide. It talks about how the PBS stations are undergoing endless pledge drives and losing money and viewers in the process, but how a nationwide feed that satellite and cable companies paid to carry would be highly profitable.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shakely-kcet-20100822,0,530153.story


Hmmm. Missed that piece. Says everything I feel is true so it must be correct.:sure:

PBS could, and should, be a satellite network with urban local stations providing free OTA and cable feeds as was intended. They could even be fed for a small fee as a "x.2 digital channel" by a struggling commercial local, substantially reducing basic overhead.

As the article says, those that produce significant local programming (seven or more hours per week in HD) could survive and perhaps would be carried by satellite carriers. Or not.


----------



## Paul Secic

runner861 said:


> If Dish loses at the Ninth Circuit, there is no guarantee the issue will get to the Supreme Court. It is discretionary whether the Court will accept the case.
> 
> On another point, there was an op-ed piece in the LA Times yesterday about PBS. It basically said that PBS's time has come and gone and that PBS should be replaced with a satellite-distributed feed nationwide. It talks about how the PBS stations are undergoing endless pledge drives and losing money and viewers in the process, but how a nationwide feed that satellite and cable companies paid to carry would be highly profitable.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shakely-kcet-20100822,0,530153.story


That's true, they have pledge nights all of the time.


----------



## runner861

The satellite-distribution model appears to have worked for C-SPAN, although I am not sure what the carriage arrangement is with C-SPAN and the cable/satellite companies. Also, does anyone know if C-SPAN is carried OTA on any station anywhere?


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> The satellite-distribution model appears to have worked for C-SPAN, although I am not sure what the carriage arrangement is with C-SPAN and the cable/satellite companies.


For satellite, the first channel counts toward the carrier's "public interest" channels and the second channel is carried instead of C-SPAN paying the satellite company for the first channel.

Satellite distribution should work for the *C*able *S*atellite *P*ublic *A*ffairs *N*etwork. 

As noted before, all of the major broadcast networks have satellite networks. It remains their choice where to put each of the series they offer. All four major networks have decided that the OTA affiliate broadcast model works fine for them. If it didn't, they would put their better content on a cable channel and no one would care if the local affiliate was carried or not.

PBS could move to a direct satellite distribution but it would be a leap of faith that they would make more money from direct distribution than OTA affiliation. (Yes, they're "not for profit" but making money pays for programming.)


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> For satellite, the first channel counts toward the carrier's "public interest" channels and the second channel is carried instead of C-SPAN paying the satellite company for the first channel.
> 
> Satellite distribution should work for the *C*able *S*atellite *P*ublic *A*ffairs *N*etwork.
> 
> As noted before, all of the major broadcast networks have satellite networks. It remains their choice where to put each of the series they offer. All four major networks have decided that the OTA affiliate broadcast model works fine for them. If it didn't, they would put their better content on a cable channel and no one would care if the local affiliate was carried or not.
> 
> PBS could move to a direct satellite distribution but it would be a leap of faith that they would make more money from direct distribution than OTA affiliation. (Yes, they're "not for profit" but making money pays for programming.)


Of course, you are correct when you state that the networks have elected to continue with the affiliate system. And one drawback to a strictly satellite distribution system is it overlooks those viewers who are strictly OTA. The funding provided by the government for PBS may not allow the network to go to a strictly satellite distribution without affiliates.

On the other hand, persons who live in very rural areas many times have no OTA reception available and no cable available. Their choice is either to have no TV or to purchase satellite TV. To those customers, there is effectively little or no difference between a satellite-only network or a network program being transmitted by an affiliate and then rebroadcast on the DBS system.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> PBS could move to a direct satellite distribution but it would be a leap of faith that they would make more money from direct distribution than OTA affiliation. (Yes, they're "not for profit" but making money pays for programming.)


Technically, PBS has both OTA affiliate system and a direct satellite distribution system.
PBS carries both EAST and WEST HD feeds, and all 3 of their SD subchannels (as well as a simulcast SD feed of the PBS EAST HD feed) on satellite where anyone with a $99 receiver and 30" stationary dish can get it. I know several people out in the mountains who have installed such mini systems to get the PBS channels, since OTA is hit and miss there.

Their affiliate distribution system is entirely different. The satellite might just be a backup for them, but serves well for viewers as well. All the other major affiliates use a band and transmission method requiring at least a 10 foot dish, and $400 receiver. PBS is the lone network maintaining a consumer grade signal for direct satellite reception.


----------



## HarveyLA

_anyone with a $99 receiver and 30" stationary dish can get it._

Tempting, but not practical for most Dish Customers. That's why PBS local stations aren't upset over this. It's designed for people in isolated areas who don't mind the investment. 
When you add up the complete package (Receiving dish/LNB plus receiver, cables, professional installation (which most people would need), you're probably up to $400 or more, plus a Tivo (if compatible) to record the PBS-HD programs. Without that, it's of limited value. So now, it's $600 or more. Cheaper to drop Dish and go with DirecTV!
And that investment would only pay off for the next few years until Dish carries all locals in HD (by February 2013)


----------



## swallman

OK, I've spent the last hour or so reading through this entire thread and I'm still confused...

I'm planning to upgrade to HD in the very near future. We already have local HD (LaCrosse/EauClaire, WI market). Only 4 HD channels, not including PBS.

Just wondering when we might be able to have PBS in HD ? Does the STELA law require it to be done by the end of 2010 (since we already have LIL HD) ?


----------



## James Long

swallman said:


> Just wondering when we might be able to have PBS in HD ? Does the STELA law require it to be done by the end of 2010 (since we already have LIL HD) ?


There is no rule that YOUR market PBS must be carried in HD. At least not by the end of this year. If DISH's agreement with 30 PBS stations does not count as the one noted in STELA all PBS HDs in markets with any station carried in HD would need to be in HD by the end of 2011. If DISH's agreement with 30 PBS stations counts as the one noted in STELA the deadline returns to February 2013.

DISH uplinked a new batch of PBS HDs in test mode today. So far WHLA is not one of the stations available or being tested in HD.


----------



## HarveyLA

James Long said:


> There is no rule that YOUR market PBS must be carried in HD. At least not by the end of this year. If DISH's agreement with 30 PBS stations does not count as the one noted in STELA all PBS HDs in markets with any station carried in HD would need to be in HD by the end of 2011. If DISH's agreement with 30 PBS stations counts as the one noted in STELA the deadline returns to February 2013.
> 
> DISH uplinked a new batch of PBS HDs in test mode today. So far WHLA is not one of the stations available or being tested in HD.


The identity of these 30 stations is still apparently a deep secret. But so far, I don't see anyone disputing that Dish met the STELA requirement, thereby avoiding the new law's highly publicized PBS-HD timetable.

Smaller markets with fewer stations are Dish's highest priority under the earlier FCC timetable which is not in dispute. 
An additional 15% of markets must be all HD by next February. Small and medium markets have a much better chance by February 2012. Those in the largest markets, with many stations, may indeed have to wait until February 2013.


----------



## runner861

HarveyLA said:


> The identity of these 30 stations is still apparently a deep secret. But so far, I don't see anyone disputing that Dish met the STELA requirement, thereby avoiding the new law's highly publicized PBS-HD timetable.
> 
> Smaller markets with fewer stations are Dish's highest priority under the earlier FCC timetable which is not in dispute.
> An additional 15% of markets must be all HD by next February. Small and medium markets have a much better chance by February 2012. Those in the largest markets, with many stations, may indeed have to wait until February 2013.


I thought, based on what I read here, that would be the case. However, I note that Los Angeles, San Diego, and Houston are uplinked in HD. Los Angeles alone has three PBS stations. Many small-market PBS stations are not uplinked in HD at this time.


----------



## HarveyLA

runner861 said:


> I thought, based on what I read here, that would be the case. However, I note that Los Angeles, San Diego, and Houston are uplinked in HD. Los Angeles alone has three PBS stations. Many small-market PBS stations are not uplinked in HD at this time.


Uplinked in HD to what satellite? And how do you find this out?


----------



## swallman

James Long said:


> There is no rule that YOUR market PBS must be carried in HD. At least not by the end of this year. If DISH's agreement with 30 PBS stations does not count as the one noted in STELA all PBS HDs in markets with any station carried in HD would need to be in HD by the end of 2011. If DISH's agreement with 30 PBS stations counts as the one noted in STELA the deadline returns to February 2013.
> 
> DISH uplinked a new batch of PBS HDs in test mode today. So far WHLA is not one of the stations available or being tested in HD.


That's what I figured. 

Just pi$$es me off that Charlie does crap like this. PBS actually has some programming that would look really good in HD. I think PBS should've been included right from the start when they started uplinking HD LIL.


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> Uplinked in HD to what satellite? And how do you find this out?


There is a weekly "Uplink Report" thread at the top of the main Dish Network forum where channel adds, removals and changes are tracked on the internal level. In Los Angeles KVCR, KCET and KOCE have HD feeds testing on 129. In San Diego KPBS and KBNT are testing on 110. In Houston KUHT is testing on 110 and 61.5. (You can look up any market on my list here.)



swallman said:


> Just pi$$es me off that Charlie does crap like this. PBS actually has some programming that would look really good in HD. I think PBS should've been included right from the start when they started uplinking HD LIL.


It is a business decision ... but this one is being forced on him. As noted ALL HD local channels (not just PBS) in any market with any HD local channel carried must be carried on a timetable agreed on between DISH, DirecTV and the FCC. STELA interfered with that timetable and push PBS to the head of the list requiring a faster timetable and automatic inclusion of the PBS station in any new HD markets. DirecTV was exempt from the accelerated timetable because they already had a deal with APTS (a PBS affiliate group). The accelerated timetable was specifically directed at DISH.

We have not heard much positive or negative on DISH's "agreement" with a group of 30 stations. If DISH has PBS HD up in 50% of their HD markets by the end of the year any complaints against the "agreement" will be moot.

DISH must have all HD local channels in 30% of the markets where they carry any local channel in HD by February 2011. With 170 markets with any HD local that means 51 markets MUST have their PBS HD (and all other HD feeds) offered carriage by February 2011 regardless of STELA. That doubles to 60% (102 markets) by February 2012 and 100% by February 2013. PBS HD is coming ... just not any faster than any other missing HD channels in any market.

Small markets have a better chance to have their channels carried. It is a lot easier to set aside satellite space for a market with four five power channels than twenty. And it isn't just a case of carrying channels that are in HD ... DISH (and DirecTV) have to have the space set aside for all the SD channels in the market - just in case they convert to HD. So if you're in a smaller or medium size market you will likely get PBS HD (and any other currently uncarried local HD) quicker.


----------



## HarveyLA

_In Los Angeles KVCR, KCET and KOCE have HD feeds testing on 129. In San Diego KPBS and KBNT are testing on 110. In Houston KUHT is testing on 110 and 61.5. _
Does "testing" usually lead to "carrying?" And, (for whoever has sufficient technical knowledge to answer this) Is uplink capacity a separate issue from downlink capacity, or does the presence of an uplink imply there is also a matching downlink channel available to carry it?


----------



## James Long

HarveyLA said:


> _In Los Angeles KVCR, KCET and KOCE have HD feeds testing on 129. In San Diego KPBS and KBNT are testing on 110. In Houston KUHT is testing on 110 and 61.5. _
> Does "testing" usually lead to "carrying?" And, (for whoever has sufficient technical knowledge to answer this) Is uplink capacity a separate issue from downlink capacity, or does the presence of an uplink imply there is also a matching downlink channel available to carry it?


Generally testing leads to carriage. There have been instances over the years of regular channels that tested for a long time before being added or not added (even over a year in rare cases) but most named tests become real channels.

As far as we report, uplinks are downlinks. Satellites are reasonably dumb devices. All the work of creating a mux of channels is done on the ground and uplinked as one feed to the satellite where it is turned around intact and rebroadcast to customers. There is switching on most satellites to determine what downlink spot and transponder is used (within the design limits of the satellite) but it is all done on a complete transponder level. The satellite transponder numbers we report in "Uplink Reports" are the transponders used for downlink to customers. So yes, if you see it in an "Uplink Report" there is a downlink assigned for that channel. (Actual content on that transponder is not guaranteed but it is is a full path assigned from uplink station to satellite to customer receivers.)


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> Generally testing leads to carriage. There have been instances over the years of regular channels that tested for a long time before being added or not added (even over a year in rare cases) but most named tests become real channels.
> 
> As far as we report, uplinks are downlinks. Satellites are reasonably dumb devices. All the work of creating a mux of channels is done on the ground and uplinked as one feed to the satellite where it is turned around intact and rebroadcast to customers. There is switching on most satellites to determine what downlink spot and transponder is used (within the design limits of the satellite) but it is all done on a complete transponder level. The satellite transponder numbers we report in "Uplink Reports" are the transponders used for downlink to customers. So yes, if you see it in an "Uplink Report" there is a downlink assigned for that channel. (Actual content on that transponder is not guaranteed but it is is a full path assigned from uplink station to satellite to customer receivers.)


So I will ask the following question: After uplink, what are the technical barriers to immediate availability? I understand that there may be legal issues that may prevent immediate availability, but putting all legal issues aside, what is going on when a station is uplinked in test mode?


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> So I will ask the following question: After uplink, what are the technical barriers to immediate availability? I understand that there may be legal issues that may prevent immediate availability, but putting all legal issues aside, what is going on when a station is uplinked in test mode?


It varies depending on the channel but in most cases the only difference between an unavailable channel that appears in the uplink report and an available channel is a matter of a flag in a table.

What we look at for the uplink report is basically a "card catalog" file that tells receivers where to find each channel in the system. The channel number, name, location, type of channel and availability are given in that file along with other information the receiver needs to find and display that channel. But just like a card in a library's card catalog existence in the file does not mean that there is a book on the shelf (although out of 7500+ channels nearly all have something in the location pointed to by the card catalog). Move to the shelf (the transponder) and you'll find the actual channel feeds (audio/video/data) ... but in some cases you will find that a slipcover is on the wrong book. Even at the transponder level it may appear that a channel is there but it could be a test slate (monitoring transponders for bit rates can show that a feed is a changing picture but can't identify a scrambled picture). So there are no guarantees.

But in most cases the channel exists "as advertised" and DISH uses the time between initial "unavailable" uplink and the channel becoming available to customers to make sure the channel is set up correctly ie: displays the proper audio/video and has a working EPG feed. That is where these "test" channels likely are now. Literally being tested.


----------



## HarveyLA

NEW PBS STATIONS *APPARENTLY* BEING ADDED BY DISH IN HD

Compiled from http://jameslong.name/markets/

The following cities have PBS stations listed in HD but "not available,"
apparently in testing phase. One station each market unless otherwise noted.
The total number of stations is 34, in 26 markets. Notably absent are the major PBS stations in Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C. and San Francisco.

*refers to markets that are now just one station away from being "all-HD" and were likely candidates for inclusion anyway next February when 15% of additional all-HD markets must be added. In the case of Erie, PA, it is now complete. San Diego shows two stations outstanding, but one of them is low power. Cincinnati might not have been a candidate for Feb. 2011 all-HD, because it was lacking 4 stations. 3 PBS stations have been added- assuming all of those are actually in the Cincinnati DMA. So, between 27 and 30 stations are being added that probably wouldn't be next February, depending on whether you count Cincinnati. In any case, the secret "30 stations" that Dish claimed to have signed up under STELA, have now apparently been revealed. There are 34, however. Keep in mind that DISH is still fighting in court against the STELA provision. So maybe these will not actually appear any time soon. And if they do, would DISH yank them off if the court rules in their favor? Very strange.

Atlanta, GA (2)
Baltimore, MD
Charlotte, NC
*Cincinnati, OH (3)
Cleveland, OH
*Columbus, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
*Erie, PA
Hartford, CT
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN (2)
Kansas City, MO
Los Angeles, CA (3)
Medford, OR
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Nashville, TN
New York, NY (2)
Orlando, FL
Portland, OR
*Quincy, IL
Salt Lake City, UT
*San Diego, CA
Seattle/Tacoma WA (2)
St. Louis, MO


----------



## HarveyLA

The following has not been independently verified, but it's interesting, to say the least. So I thought I'd pass it on. Interpret it as you will. One of the PBS locals (not in the Los Angeles area) responded to an email I sent, asking for more information about the discovery on dbstalk, that it was among the stations Dish is now testing in HD on an uplink.

Basically, I was told that Dish Network did not speak directly to any PBS local stations about this, and reached the deal with PBS National. However, the message goes on to reference the current court battle, and it was not optimistic about any HD carriage in the near future, adding... that could change.

What's interesting is the fact that this deal has been a big secret, and we don't know how it was reached, and under what conditions. In his original article, John Eggerton said it had not been reached with the APTS, the organization that tried in vain to negotiate a pact. But Dish didn't tell him who the deal was reached with. It was easy to assume that Dish bypassed APTS and went directly to the stations. But, maybe not. If PBS national was involved.... well you can speculate on the "political" ramifications of giving Dish the "out" it needed to avoid the advanced timetable (assuming it loses the court case. ) Again,another disclaimer. There's no additional verification at this point.


----------



## runner861

So we really don't know what is going on with the PBS uplinks at this point. Dish is very secretive. We also don't know what is going on with the distant network situation. Dish is very secretive on that as well. Of course, we never know what is going on with carriage agreements of the various stations either. Dish is very secretive on that also.


----------



## Greg Bimson

HarveyLA said:


> In any case, the secret "30 stations" that Dish claimed to have signed up under STELA, have now apparently been revealed.


Remember, it was an assumption that Dish Network signed up 30 stations in secret. Dish Network only had to come to a carriage agreement with an organization that represented 30 or more stations...


HarveyLA said:


> Basically, I was told that Dish Network did not speak directly to any PBS local stations about this, and reached the deal with PBS National.


So the question becomes does PBS have the authority to be the organization that represents 30 or more stations, or is it APTS?


James Long said:


> Generally testing leads to carriage. There have been instances over the years of regular channels that tested for a long time before being added or not added *(even over a year in rare cases) but most named tests become real channels.*


We are just over 5 months away from the FCC-mandated timetable. Work can be started on getting the PBS channels up because of the so-called "HD must-carry" timetable, as well as showing everyone Dish Network is seriously trying to get PBS up and available for select markets.

I just think Dish Network will fight the PBS carriage mandate in court because their position is weak; if PBS (the corporation) doesn't have the right to negotiate on behalf of their affiliates, Dish Network is not an eligible carrier and the law states that half of their HD markets should have non-commercial stations available as of the end of 2010.


----------



## phrelin

Things folks do always confuse me. In the thread PBS announces HD feed for backyard dish users we learn that PBS is shifting it's C-band feed to digital for the following reasons:


> *Benefits of the Change to Digital Conversion of the PBS Clear Feed to digital transmission will:
> *
> • Preserve an open PBS satellite program service in the most widely used transmission format available;
> 
> • Allow PBS to offer both High Definition (HD) and Standard Definition (SD) services because of the higher efficiency of digital transmission;
> 
> • Allow PBS to provide 5.1 surround sound to the backyard dish community on High Definition programs; and
> 
> • Will be in line with the nationwide conversion to digital over-the-air television


I think if I were Dish Network I'd be using this memo and it's technical attachment as an exhibit arguing that:

Dish Network proposed offering one nationwide HD feed and PBS rejected the proposal;
PBS offers it's signal free to one class of satellite customers but not others; and
As an alternative to offering PBS locals, upon request Dish will provide for free to its customers a dish and receiver to receive the C-band national HD feed in their homes.
I'd "cc" that exhibit to every member of Congress and ask them what the heck is going on here. (And yes, the free C-band equipment would be a bluff although the number of customers who'd care would be relative few and it might be cheaper.)


----------



## James Long

As noted in that thread there are Ku feeds already available ... but I agree (to a point):
DISH should be able to help PBS distribute their signal - even make it FTA on DISH satellites - to help PBS reach all styles of backyard dishes. 

(The point where I have to stop is that local PBSs still have to be carried in HD per STELA despite any agreement to carry another feed. Unless, of course, the local PBSs waive their right to carriage. I would not expect that to happen.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> I think if I were Dish Network I'd be using this memo and it's technical attachment as an exhibit arguing that:
> 1. Dish Network proposed offering one nationwide HD feed and PBS rejected the proposal;
> 2. PBS offers it's signal free to one class of satellite customers but not others; and ​


So Dish Network was rebuffed on offering the national SD feed upon implementation of must-carry back in 2002. It's no different now than it was then...

One class of satellite customers scans the skies for originating feeds; the other gives their money in the form of a subscription to a company that takes those feeds and rebroadcasts them over their satellite fleet.


James Long said:


> DISH should be able to help PBS distribute their signal - even make it FTA on DISH satellites - to help PBS reach all styles of backyard dishes.


And that is where the difference is; PBS doesn't need help as their only signal is a day-delayed feed available on G3. And PBS doesn't want that feed given to others except in very limited circumstances.


----------



## phrelin

My problem here is that from all appearances there is a clear policy conflict within PBS. Either they want a clear, in the open, HD feed of their programming for everyone or they don't. What's this discriminatory approach that says:

If you obtain your signal from C-band, here's our national programming free.
If you obtain your signal off-the-air, here's our national programming free through your free broadcast station.
If you among the majority of [strike]poor saps[/strike] television viewers who get your signal via satellite or cable, send a fee and we'll let you watch our national programming.
PBS is not NBCU. There is federal, state, and sometimes education government money involved here. We should all -including the vast majority of viewers - get the same treatment. What am I missing?


----------



## James Long

It makes them look good to "give away" a signal that few will ever watch. They hope people remember that the feed is free ... and continue to send in those pledge payments. And when the greedy satellite companies fail to deliver their "free" signals and yet still charge for service they hope you forget that the satellite signal isn't free to satellite providers.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> My problem here is that from all appearances there is a clear policy conflict within PBS. Either they want a clear, in the open, HD feed of their programming for everyone or they don't.


I'll treat that as a question...

PBS doesn't want an open HD feed of their programming for everyone. PBS would prefer you receive PBS programming from local PBS members. PBS has the C-band feed to distribute their progamming to the C-band community.


phrelin said:


> PBS is not NBCU. There is federal, state, and sometimes education government money involved here. We should all -including the vast majority of viewers - get the same treatment. What am I missing?


From wikipedia:


> PBS stations are commonly operated by non-profit organizations, state agencies, local authorities (e.g., municipal boards of education), or universities in their community of license. In some states, PBS stations throughout the entire state may be organized into a single regional "subnetwork" (e.g., Alabama Public Television). Unlike public broadcasters in most other countries, PBS does not own any of the stations that broadcast its programming. (i.e., there are no PBS O&Os anywhere in the country) This is partly due to the origins of the PBS stations themselves, and partly due to historical license issues.


So of course this is EXACTLY like NBCU. There may be some federal or state funding involved, but the end result is that PBS programming is first-run on their member affiliates. That also answers positvely the question whether or not PBS is legally able to represent 30 or more non-commercial stations.


James Long said:


> And when the greedy satellite companies fail to deliver their "free" signals and yet still charge for service they hope you forget that the satellite signal isn't free to satellite providers.


Of course, there is a large difference between watching either KQED from San Francisco or any iteration of IPBS in Indiana (locally funded with even more decisions about local programming and scheduling) than watching the PBS Satellite Service (owned and operated by PBS only). As you can see, there are mulitple parties involved in the process.

And I am pretty certain the local station cannot charge the cable or satellite rebroadcaster a carriage fee. Law states the signal of the local station itself must be free to rebroadcasters.


----------



## scooper

While PBS stations are prohibited from using "Retransmission Consent" (they are strictly "Must Carry"), they are hardly "free" to DBS / cable. There's the expenses involved in getting the signal, then sending it to uplink and so on (much simplified, of course).


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> PBS doesn't want an open HD feed of their programming for everyone. PBS would prefer you receive PBS programming from local PBS members. PBS has the C-band feed to distribute their progamming to the C-band community.


And what makes the C-band community so special? I was a C-band community member once upon a time. That meant I bought a big satellite dish and an Echostar receiver. Now I have a small satellite dish and and Echostar receiver. What does dish size have to do with it? Is mine not big enough for PBS?

What PBS is recognizing here is the truth about local broadcasting. The local PBS broadcasters aren't going to shell out to uplink a free signal to the C-band community. But if someone else will pay for 200 uplinks, like members of the two DBS "communities", PBS isn't going to provide a national signal in HD.


> And I am pretty certain the local station cannot charge the cable or satellite rebroadcaster a carriage fee. Law states the signal of the local station itself must be free to rebroadcasters.


And Dish has to negotiate in order to carry a PBS affiliate in HD for some reason.

PBS viewers can sometimes be rabid fans, but they aren't that big a group. PBS signed up for the Nielsen ratings for the first time in December 2009. My guess is that even in the Bay Area KQED's ratings will not match The CW's affiliate KBCW (I hope they get more viewers than the MyNetwork affiliate KRON, but I doubt it).

We regularly watch a couple of British shows and stuff like that 4th of July annual show on PBS. But frankly, rather than pay money for a PBS station, I'd buy the DVDs. In my youngest granddaughters home they don't even have regular TV. She's a modern online streaming TV consumer, including PBS Kids subchannel stuff. That's where the future of local PBS belongs.

I guess you're right to say they are like NBCU, at least like NBC. IMHO local national network broadcasting should be dead but now they want cable and satellite viewers to prop them up with fees supported by the federal legal structure that was supposed to give us free access to programming.

So yes, I'm irked that in 2010 I can't record an HD feed of PBS national programming. KQED isn't going to get my annual donation until I have an HD feed. When I do have an HD feed, I will be subtracting what I think it costs me because Dish has to provide some 200 uplinks for local channels that may have fewer viewers than the local MyNetwork TV affiliates. And I will subtract whatever total per-subscriber fees PBS gets from Dish divided by an extrapolation of actual monthly PBS viewing Dish households.

My guess is that they'll owe me several thousand dollars. :nono:


----------



## tcatdbs

I think you read my mind... I watch maybe 12-15 shows a year on PBS/KLRU (at least I use to when I was with TWC). Now with Dish's SD version, sides cut off, and bad resolution, I watch maybe 1 per year and no longer contribute. You'd think they'd want to broadcast in HD to as many viewers as possible, I would think their added subscriber base would more than pay for anything they're not getting from Dish. Now I stream Dr. Who (and other PBS shows) on Netflix.



phrelin said:


> So yes, I'm irked that in 2010 I can't record an HD feed of PBS national programming. KQED isn't going to get my annual donation until I have an HD feed. When I do have an HD feed, I will be subtracting what I think it costs me because Dish has to provide some 200 uplinks for local channels that may have fewer viewers than the local MyNetwork TV affiliates. And I will subtract whatever total per-subscriber fees PBS gets from Dish divided by an extrapolation of actual monthly PBS viewing Dish households.
> 
> My guess is that they'll owe me several thousand dollars. :nono:


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> And what makes the C-band community so special? I was a C-band community member once upon a time. That meant I bought a big satellite dish and an Echostar receiver. Now I have a small satellite dish and and Echostar receiver. What does dish size have to do with it? Is mine not big enough for PBS?


PBS is leasing transponder space on one of the SES Americom satellites and transmitting a special feed. If Dish Network wants that feed, they have to _negotiate_ for it...


phrelin said:


> The local PBS broadcasters aren't going to shell out to uplink a free signal to the C-band community. But if someone else will pay for 200 uplinks, like members of the two DBS "communities", PBS isn't going to provide a national signal in HD.


And here was the problem in a nutshell:

DirecTV and Dish Network are already paying "for 200 uplinks"; it is simply the matter of adding another channel.

C-band does not lend itself to regionalized programming. Meanwhile, Dish Network and DirecTV lobbied for the ability to rebroadcast and sell localized, OTA-broadcasted programming.


phrelin said:


> I guess you're right to say they are like NBCU, at least like NBC. IMHO local national network broadcasting should be dead but now they want cable and satellite viewers to prop them up with fees supported by the federal legal structure that was supposed to give us free access to programming.


Again, if you take a look at the carriage contracts within this thread, you'll note that no money is changing hands.

Then again, I'm trying to figure out where this was legislation "that was supposed to give us free access to programming". I don't think Dish Network and DirecTV give out access to local channels for free.


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> C-band does not lend itself to regionalized programming. Meanwhile, Dish Network and DirecTV lobbied for the ability to rebroadcast and sell localized, OTA-broadcasted programming.Again, if you take a look at the carriage contracts within this thread, you'll note that no money is changing hands.


Funny, I thought Charlie began with the assumption he already had the right to "rebroadcast" local programming that the local broadcasters paid for licenses that allowed them to broadcast for free within a given viewing area (an area now incorporated in FCC regulations).


> Then again, I'm trying to figure out where this was legislation "that was supposed to give us free access to programming". I don't think Dish Network and DirecTV give out access to local channels for free.


Neither do cable companies. It costs money to rebroadcast a signal. Unless, of course you're PBS and as a network pay the cost to rebroadcast a signal to a select few. And don't think for a moment that big dish users in our area don't have access to cable for locals.

There is nothing fair and equitable about this. Dish should be able to grab and rebroadcast a KQED HD signal when it wants to without dealing with numbers rules that favor feeding a small community in the midwest because otherwise they have to feed three HD signals in the Bay Area, two of which are unnecessary. Just my opinion.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Funny, I thought Charlie began with the assumption he already had the right to "rebroadcast" local programming that the local broadcasters paid for licenses that allowed them to broadcast for free within a given viewing area (an area now incorporated in FCC regulations).


Charlie began with an assumption that he could take free OTA TV signals and rebroadcast them to anywhere, regardless of the station's consent, payment to stations or respecting the affiliation contracts and the station's broadcast area.

He (and DirecTV) ended up being sued ... and lost. Turns out he didn't have permission to take anyone's signal and broadcast it anywhere ... let alone broadcasting it everywhere. And while the lawsuit went through court he (as Greg noted) worked with congress to get a law that WOULD allow him to rebroadcast local TV stations under a statutory license system.

Many years and a few revisions later the law isn't perfect but it is the law we have today. Local into local with either forced carriage (must carry - no payment to the station) or negotiated carriage (consent to carry - the station may charge). Distant stations only if a local station of that network does not cover the viewer or waives it's exclusive rights. A few years ago "significantly viewed" stations from neighboring markets were allowed for satellite. (These were originally considered a form of distants but was moved to the locals law by STELA).


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> Funny, I thought Charlie began with the assumption he already had the right to "rebroadcast" local programming that the local broadcasters paid for licenses that allowed them to broadcast for free within a given viewing area (an area now incorporated in FCC regulations).


Dish Network does not have 'the right to "rebroadcast" local programming'. There are certain criteria which must be met before that can happen.


phrelin said:


> There is nothing fair and equitable about this. Dish should be able to grab and rebroadcast a KQED HD signal when it wants to without dealing with numbers rules that favor feeding a small community in the midwest because otherwise they have to feed three HD signals in the Bay Area, two of which are unnecessary. Just my opinion.


Then come to an agreement. That's what this thread is all about; Dish Network couldn't come to an agreement with APTS.

It appears they've come to an agreement with PBS, but the member stations might not want to sign a carriage agreement under the terms of the PBS-Dish Network master agreement.

BTW, I believe DirecTV is only showing KQED in HD. Most likely as the terms of the agreement they have with APTS.


----------



## mlcarson

This mandate is crazy. Satellite providers should have the option of simply carrying 1 PBS station in HD per time zone or just 1 station nationwide. This is what Canada does. Having to carry hundreds of PBS stations showing the same programming is a waste of valuable bandwidth. Of course, I think the same thing about having to broadcast the big three for every DMA but at least that was Dish's choice.


----------



## Greg Bimson

mlcarson said:


> This mandate is crazy. Satellite providers should have the option of simply carrying 1 PBS station in HD per time zone or just 1 station nationwide.


And have Congress and the President abrogate PBS' rights? Just wait until a law is passed to restrict your rights...


mlcarson said:


> This is what Canada does.


We live in a society with more freedoms here than in Canada.


mlcarson said:


> Having to carry hundreds of PBS stations showing the same programming is a waste of valuable bandwidth.


Not really. Spot-beams kind of make that point moot.


mlcarson said:


> Of course, I think the same thing about having to broadcast the big three for every DMA but at least that was Dish's choice.


And if Dish Network has made the determination to serve a market with HD local channels, then it is imperative that the local channels that tend to produce local programming be included.


----------



## prm1177

PBS and their local affiliates should figure out a way to make this happen ASAP. Discovery and various other HD channels, including the Learning, Nature, and History Channels are sucking up a lot of the PBS market, even with commercials.

The only thing the PBS locals seem to have are Britcoms and pledge drives these days.


----------



## HarveyLA

prm1177 said:


> PBS and their local affiliates should figure out a way to make this happen ASAP. Discovery and various other HD channels, including the Learning, Nature, and History Channels are sucking up a lot of the PBS market, even with commercials.
> 
> The only thing the PBS locals seem to have are Britcoms and pledge drives these days.


The local stations pay PBS for the programs they carry. No pledge drive, no pay PBS, no programs. PBS bypasses local stations- local stations disappear- same result. Even if you could fund a national only PBS somehow, you would wipe out the diversity of programming and local programming. We have three PBS stations in the Los Angeles area. KCET is the primary with first run PBS and its own local programs, KOCE also covers greater Los Angeles and has a lot of local programming. Check out their web site if you doubt it.
By the way, KCET recently hinted it might drop PBS and contract for its own programs (maybe a negotiating ploy to get their payments to PBS reduced, but ..maybe not.) They're also floating an idea for the L.A. PBS affiliates to join forces and share the first run PBS programs. 
In any case, the main point is that local stations are at the heart of U.S. broadcasting, and will always be protected by Congress (at least until new technology or market forces cause them to fold on their own.) I've made this point before, but it bears repeating. Anyone who is willing to weaken or kill off local stations so they can get their national HD PBS programs a little sooner, is in my opinion short-sighted. If you can't wait for the inevitable- all PBS locals will be in HD sooner or later, then why not switch to DirecTV?
And I would not put the blame on PBS or its affiliates for Dish Network's failures. The PBS stations are eager to be carried in HD, for free. The reason for the negotiations is that Dish was trying to hold off action by Congress that threatened to impose a tough new deadline. Dish's proposal was not good enough to be approved by the affiliates. Congress acted. Dish is now doing its best to tie it up in the courts.


----------



## phrelin

So what you're arguing is that there just isn't enough airtime on only one PBS station in the LA area because the various stations produce so much quality HD local programming watched by millions of different people?

The problem is that even at best PBS stations don't compete well in ratings. Nothing you say could convince me that LA and the Bay Area would be better served by one PBS station. IMHO Dish and DirecTV shouldn't have to waste resources on serving up more than one in a DMA.

The case I'm arguing for one national version is the same argument I've made elsewhere for the commercial broadcast networks. We're being forced to provide the local affiliates with economic life support no matter how bad they are and how little audience the local programming attracts. Even if that life support is one of four HD spotbeams available and the uplink costs, many times its way too much.

Way too many PBS locals feel like a local Lions Club with self-important members serving on boards and their non-profit mission is nothing more than keeping the "station" alive because there is virtually no economic chance for any more significant purpose.

If, instead of broadcast TV, TV started in wires and satellite the model would have been different. For most American households today, TV comes from wires and satellites. Why are we supporting that outdated local broadcast model? It's 2010, not 1950. In technology time that is six centuries.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> If, instead of broadcast TV, TV started in wires and satellite the model would have been different. For most American households today, TV comes from wires and satellites. Why are we supporting that outdated local broadcast model? It's 2010, not 1950. In technology time that is six centuries.


Did lawmakers grant a second license to most stations in order to transition to digital TV? The current model is OTA transmissions...


phrelin said:


> The case I'm arguing for one national version is the same argument I've made elsewhere for the commercial broadcast networks. We're being forced to provide the local affiliates with economic life support no matter how bad they are and how little audience the local programming attracts. Even if that life support is one of four HD spotbeams available and the uplink costs, many times its way too much.


Economic life support? The affiliates have rights, too. In this argument, the main concern identifies uplink costs, which means the only issue with the current system is that it duplicates some programming, i.e. it is not beneficial to Dish Network and DirecTV. And those companies have the right to stop serving this programming.

Yet Dish Network just finished serving all 210 markets nationwide, and DirecTV is still adding more and more local markets, which means it doesn't appear they mind.

I'll still go back to March to July, 1999. When DirecTV lost their court case regarding violations of the SHVA and were forced to disconnect about a quarter of their subscriber base from distant networks, DirecTV was in a dire position. There was no way for them to provide network programming as the SHVIA hadn't been passed. By about July, DirecTV was then able to take Dish Network's crusade to provide local channels and then set Dish Network on the sidelines regarding their lobbying effort.

Long story short, DirecTV was able to come to an agreement with the NAB to establish a framework which would become the SHVIA, providing local-into-local service. It seemed that because DirecTV lost their suit on the SHVA, they noticed their churn getting a bit higher. Dish Network was being sued for violations of the SHVA, but that suit wasn't going to be settled for a couple years (and that ended up turning into seven years through the course of appeals and a retrial).

When the DirecTV/NAB deal was announced, the one set of parties that were wondering what happened were the networks. The networks, who at that time were just starting to lose money, wondered aloud why DirecTV didn't come to them. The thought was that the networks may have created a special, national feed for a fee in order to provide their programming to DirecTV, a de-facto cable channel if you will.

And we'll never know if that would have come to pass. The affiliate community was in an uproar when cable channels were able to rebroadcast episodes of popular series two weeks after they were first shown on the network. It may have taken the networks an absolute miracle to negotiate a contract with DirecTV, Dish Network and the networks' own affiliate groups because that would have marked the first time in history a network would no longer have given their affiliates the first-run exclusive.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> When the DirecTV/NAB deal was announced, the one set of parties that were wondering what happened were the networks. The networks, who at that time were just starting to lose money, wondered aloud why DirecTV didn't come to them. The thought was that the networks may have created a special, national feed for a fee in order to provide their programming to DirecTV, a de-facto cable channel if you will.


They would have run in to the same problems as you note below ... serving the affiliates via a "first run" contract as well as serving potential viewers who had no or limited access to affiliate feeds.



> And we'll never know if that would have come to pass. The affiliate community was in an uproar when cable channels were able to rebroadcast episodes of popular series two weeks after they were first shown on the network. It may have taken the networks an absolute miracle to negotiate a contract with DirecTV, Dish Network and the networks' own affiliate groups because that would have marked the first time in history a network would no longer have given their affiliates the first-run exclusive.


And that is what prevents a national network feed ... the network's desire to continue to protect their deal with affiliates. Every major network has cable feeds ... it is only their own self control and not wanting to tick of affiliates that keeps broadcast programs off of cable to the extent that the two worlds are kept separate.


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> Yet Dish Network just finished serving all 210 markets nationwide, and DirecTV is still adding more and more local markets, which means it doesn't appear they mind.


This will be my last post on the subject of national feeds in this thread. But I just must [strike]respond[/strike] rant.

I'm as sentimental about Hoffman TV's and the DuMont Television Network as the any other old fart here. I was watching TV in 1951. I had family working for NBC radio then who didn't make the transition successfully. That didn't mean I wanted to block advances in TV.

You could have fooled me that Dish "finished serving all 210 local markets nationwide." I guess the San Francisco Bay Area is a DMA in Canada because because I'm not served at a 21st Century level. I don't get The CW or PBS in HD. Or do you define "serve" as cropping down an HD picture, reducing its quality, and sending it out SD? Using that approach would you include in "served" a signal that is mono audio with a black and white picture using minimal bandwidth?

Would you allow local broadcasters to get away with defining "serve" in a manner that includes a geographic service area within which 50% of the area (I mean land area, not customers) cannot get a signal. Oh, I forgot! That's exactly what they and the FCC do mean in the majority of DMA's in the west.

It's a darned good thing local businesses didn't somehow get a federally protected interest in the internet, or I'd still have to use dialup whenever I wanted to contact someone outside the Mendocino County Comcast ISP system.

Using the television industry in 2010 as a model, we would all be driving on a "roadway system" (a system that includes OTA, cable and satellite) that precludes the use of the Interstate highway system (satellite) by all local residents for half their trips (half their viewing) because local businesses would take heavy losses if traffic didn't drive through the middle of town past their storefronts as opposed to driving by interchanges where regional shopping centers made up of national chains sell the same products.

Would we value the local guy tapping out Morse Code on the national telegraph system so much that people would fight to prevent the telephone system from providing long distance service?

I can be a Luddite about some technology "advances" but I don't impose my backwardness on others (unless you have some need to call me on my cell phone).

When I got my C-band dish in the 1980's, I thought "this and cable are the ways TV service should be provided!" The local broadcasting model should have died before the turn of the century, but we're keeping it on life support. And it appears that in the satellite community there are many defenders of the status quo.

In the 21st Century satellite and cable customers should be getting, and satellite companies should be paying for, no more than one feed of national broadcast network programming handled just like cable channels IMHO. The success or failure of local broadcasters should be dependent upon their ability to attract viewers and advertisers (or donors) exclusively through their use of their OTA signals. Their ability to demonstrate to cable and satellite companies that a demand exists for their signal should determine if they get carried.

In our DMA, virtually no demand would exist in Mendocino County for the local programming on KNTV, the NBC-owned affiliate with its office located in San Jose, 182 miles from my house with several mountain ridges in between.

If nothing else, keeping the current local broadcast network model in 2010 is a waste of a lot of the nation's electricity. I don't get it and I never will.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Just a couple of points, and I'm done...


phrelin said:


> You could have fooled me that Dish "finished serving all 210 local markets nationwide." I guess the San Francisco Bay Area is a DMA in Canada because because I'm not served at a 21st Century level. I don't get The CW or PBS in HD. Or do you define "serve" as cropping down an HD picture, reducing its quality, and sending it out SD? Using that approach would you include in "served" a signal that is mono audio with a black and white picture using minimal bandwidth?


Ahh, and now the crux of the issue...

Under the system we have, whose fault is it you aren't getting those channels? There is a choice of compromise; there is another satellite provider giving their customers the two channels you desire in the format you want. But for some reason, your choice is elsewhere, and the blame is going to everyone else but the company that won't provide those channels.


phrelin said:


> can be a Luddite about some technology "advances" but I don't impose my backwardness on others (unless you have some need to call me on my cell phone).
> 
> [...]
> 
> In the 21st Century satellite and cable customers should be getting, and satellite companies should be paying for, no more than one feed of national broadcast network programming handled just like cable channels IMHO.


But along with many others I've debated on this issue, everything is about the technology. However, businesses work by serving their customers to make a buck.

There is a major difference between technological advances and solid business fundamentals. Everyone learned that the hard way with the dot-com and the dot-bomb. It took Amazon a while to be competitive; copyright holders cringed regarding how their rights were being violated as Napster was full-out destroyed while YouTube flourished.

And until someone can convince the NETWORKS to change their business plan to remove the affiliate system and put a cable network in its place, there's no sense watching the programming from those networks. That means you are supporting the business model you so loathe. It may seem trivial, but it is very true.


phrelin said:


> Would you allow local broadcasters to get away with defining "serve" in a manner that includes a geographic service area within which 50% of the area (I mean land area, not customers) cannot get a signal. Oh, I forgot! That's exactly what they and the FCC do mean in the majority of DMA's in the west.


Congress wrote the bill and the President signed the law ordering the use of the Nielsen DMA as local-into-local boundaries, not the FCC. Lines had to be drawn somewhere. What map would you have used?

Keep in mind that the largest reason for the advent of cable TV was to act as a community antenna in order to pull in stations one could not get clearly, and the advent of consumer satellite was to have rural folk without cable receive channels from the sky. With the advent of the small dish, they were competing for customers of both the C-band market and the cable company. And no surprise, they package and act pretty much like cable companies, with some minor "technological" differences.

Which leads me back to the fact that the satellite companies and the cable companies are rebroadcasters. You need permission from whatever channel you want to carry in order to rebroadcast it. And the issue I don't like is that some want those rules changed, meaning an abrogation of rights would have to occur via a law.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> Just a couple of points, and I'm done...Ahh, and now the crux of the issue...
> 
> Under the system we have, whose fault is it you aren't getting those channels? There is a choice of compromise; there is another satellite provider giving their customers the two channels you desire in the format you want. But for some reason, your choice is elsewhere, and the blame is going to everyone else but the company that won't provide those channels.But along with many others I've debated on this issue, everything is about the technology. However, businesses work by serving their customers to make a buck.
> 
> There is a major difference between technological advances and solid business fundamentals. Everyone learned that the hard way with the dot-com and the dot-bomb. It took Amazon a while to be competitive; copyright holders cringed regarding how their rights were being violated as Napster was full-out destroyed while YouTube flourished.
> 
> And until someone can convince the NETWORKS to change their business plan to remove the affiliate system and put a cable network in its place, there's no sense watching the programming from those networks. That means you are supporting the business model you so loathe. It may seem trivial, but it is very true.Congress wrote the bill and the President signed the law ordering the use of the Nielsen DMA as local-into-local boundaries, not the FCC. Lines had to be drawn somewhere. What map would you have used?
> 
> Keep in mind that the largest reason for the advent of cable TV was to act as a community antenna in order to pull in stations one could not get clearly, and the advent of consumer satellite was to have rural folk without cable receive channels from the sky. With the advent of the small dish, they were competing for customers of both the C-band market and the cable company. And no surprise, they package and act pretty much like cable companies, with some minor "technological" differences.
> 
> Which leads me back to the fact that the satellite companies and the cable companies are rebroadcasters. You need permission from whatever channel you want to carry in order to rebroadcast it. And the issue I don't like is that some want those rules changed, meaning an abrogation of rights would have to occur via a law.


Going to DirectTV is not going to change the situation, at least in many markets. There are many markets where Dish is providing HD, although not for PBS stations. Those same markets are receiving no locals from Direct, or only SD locals from Direct. Many of these markets are small, some are mid-size. For example, Dish provides HD locals in Monterey-Salinas, although not PBS in HD. Direct only provides SD locals in that market.

The Monterey-Salinas market, although a small media market, is geographically huge. There are many rural viewers who are claimed by the local stations, yet no type of OTA antenna will receive any channel in parts of that market. Many parts of that market are not served by cable. So, viewers must elect Direct, or Dish, or no TV. Dish is the best choice, because it provides some locals in HD, although not PBS. Direct provides no locals in HD.

There is no reason those local stations should be propped up by the system that Congress has set in place. There is no reason that these viewers should be denied HD. At the very least, the DMA's should be no larger than where the TV signal can realistically be received OTA.


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> And the issue I don't like is that some want those rules changed, meaning an abrogation of rights would have to occur via a law.


Sigh. We aren't talking about fundamental rights. We're talking about a grant of privilege by the federal government - an FCC license for the exclusive use of the public's airwaves. The fact that it has been combined with complex rules providing significant governmental protections many of which were created as a result of heavy lobbying of Congress doesn't change the most basic fundamental fact.


Greg Bimson said:


> Congress wrote the bill and the President signed the law ordering the use of the Nielsen DMA as local-into-local boundaries, not the FCC. Lines had to be drawn somewhere. What map would you have used?


No lines "had to be drawn" by anyone. Congress was convinced by lobbying that lines should be drawn. The Nielsen DMA was a lazy way to draw these lines. The FCC should have sent a truck around with a 20' antenna measuring signals to create the map. The FCC should do that now to redraw the map for digital signals.


Greg Bimson said:


> There is a major difference between technological advances and solid business fundamentals. Everyone learned that the hard way with the dot-com and the dot-bomb. It took Amazon a while to be competitive; copyright holders cringed regarding how their rights were being violated as Napster was full-out destroyed while YouTube flourished.


You'll get no quarrel from me about that. But you're talking about the internet, now an old technology. Television is an even older technology. At some point we have to stop being forced to buy buggy whips in order to drive an automobile.


Greg Bimson said:


> And until someone can convince the NETWORKS to change their business plan to remove the affiliate system and put a cable network in its place, there's no sense watching the programming from those networks. That means you are supporting the business model you so loathe.


Unfortunately for me, until someone reigns in the advantages granted to broadcast stations by the government, networks won't change their business model.

The networks, though much weaker than twenty years ago, control a large piece of the money flow that creates content and have squeezed out independent sources by reducing what they buy outside related media production companies.

I do watch more content from the very few sources not owned by the parent companies of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. The scripted programming offered by HBO, AMC, IFC, Sundance, and BBCA is growing and the quality is good. Almost every other channel with first-run-in-the-US scripted programming is owned by a media conglomerate that owns ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC.

So it really doesn't matter if I watch something on ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC as supporting scripted programming on Syfy, FX, Showtime, A&E, etc. puts money in the same pockets.

PBS has been a consistent source of good scripted programming for me also. I really don't care if it's in HD, though I wish it wasn't letterboxed 4:3. I don't get IFC or Sundance in HD either. I still watch programming I like in SD. No biggie.

I just don't like how the government is handling broadcasting. But then, I didn't like how they handled the railroads which on a mileage basis were given a grants similar to the broadcast licenses and I think we as a nation can now see we've lost our edge in rail transportation because we didn't take back those grants when the railroad corporations failed to serve the public interest.

I don't see conspiracies against the public interest, but I do see patterns that fail the public interest.


----------



## runner861

phrelin said:


> Sigh. We aren't talking about fundamental rights. We're talking about a grant of privilege by the federal government - an FCC license for the exclusive use of the public's airwaves. The fact that it has been combined with complex rules providing significant governmental protections many of which were created as a result of heavy lobbying of Congress doesn't change the most basic fundamental fact.No lines "had to be drawn" by anyone. Congress was convinced by lobbying that lines should be drawn. The Nielsen DMA was a lazy way to draw these lines. The FCC should have sent a truck around with a 20' antenna measuring signals to create the map. The FCC should do that now to redraw the map for digital signals.You'll get no quarrel from me about that. But you're talking about the internet, now an old technology. Television is an even older technology. At some point we have to stop being forced to buy buggy whips in order to drive an automobile.Unfortunately for me, until someone reigns in the advantages granted to broadcast stations by the government, networks won't change their business model.
> 
> The networks, though much weaker than twenty years ago, control a large piece of the money flow that creates content and have squeezed out independent sources by reducing what they buy outside related media production companies.
> 
> I do watch more content from the very few sources not owned by the parent companies of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. The scripted programming offered by HBO, AMC, IFC, Sundance, and BBCA is growing and the quality is good. Almost every other channel with first-run-in-the-US scripted programming is owned by a media conglomerate that owns ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC.
> 
> So it really doesn't matter if I watch something on ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC as supporting scripted programming on Syfy, FX, Showtime, A&E, etc. puts money in the same pockets.
> 
> PBS has been a consistent source of good scripted programming for me also. I really don't care if it's in HD, though I wish it wasn't letterboxed 4:3. I don't get IFC or Sundance in HD either. I still watch programming I like in SD. No biggie.
> 
> I just don't like how the government is handling broadcasting. But then, I didn't like how they handled the railroads which on a mileage basis were given a grants similar to the broadcast licenses and I think we as a nation can now see we've lost our edge in rail transportation because we didn't take back those grants when the railroad corporations failed to serve the public interest.
> 
> I don't see conspiracies against the public interest, but I do see patterns that fail the public interest.


Agree. 100 percent.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson said:


> And the issue I don't like is that some want those rules changed, meaning an abrogation of rights would have to occur via a law.





phrelin said:


> Sigh. We aren't talking about fundamental rights.


Of course they may not be "fundamental rights".


phrelin said:


> We're talking about a grant of privilege by the federal government - an FCC license for the exclusive use of the public's airwaves. The fact that it has been combined with complex rules providing significant governmental protections many of which were created as a result of heavy lobbying of Congress doesn't change the most basic fundamental fact.


I'm still trying to understand these "significant governmental protections". I don't see it, yet.


phrelin said:


> No lines "had to be drawn" by anyone. Congress was convinced by lobbying that lines should be drawn. The Nielsen DMA was a lazy way to draw these lines. The FCC should have sent a truck around with a 20' antenna measuring signals to create the map. The FCC should do that now to redraw the map for digital signals.


Send a truck around and do signal measurements? Do you have any idea of the cost to implement that? That would be downright expensive.

Reality dicates that if a station was to be carried on the DBS providers, there needed to be a mechanism to define the area in which customers can receive the channel. It may have been "lazy", but remember that management at Dish Network that stated they needed local channels to compete with cable. Also remember, DirecTV came to an agreement with the NAB which provided the framework for local service legislation, and that included the Nielsen market as the definition for the service area.


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> I'm still trying to understand these "significant governmental protections".


OK. Here's how I see it. A license was granted around 50 years ago to a local TV channel for the exclusive use of a piece of the public's airwaves within a geographic boundary to transmit television signals subject to certain conditions. Those signals were to be free to anyone in the geographic area who paid for the equipment and electricity to get the signal into the TV set.

That no one else could use the same radio frequencies in a defined area (not defined by DMA) was a significant governmental protection. Then there came the rule that prohibited bringing in duplicate programming from outside the area, another significant governmental protection. Without these two rules, the license would have minimal basic value. The government created this basic value.

Today relatively few Americans use their own equipment to capture the signal and get it to their TV set. Without "must carry" rules the license would lose its much of its value, except for those stations affiliated with national networks. National networks create value apart from the local station license value. The national network value is not contingent upon having local stations deliver the programming as it could be delivered by cable and satellite.

I realize there are private complex legal arrangements between affiliates and networks. But the fact is that the license granting the exclusive use of a piece of the public's airwaves underlies the entire private contract structure and that is a significant governmental protection.

Perhaps if we just opened up these frequencies to any and all potential amateur TV operators much like ham radio frequencies, the resulting chaos would cause the networks to abandon the local channels. Eliminating the significant governmental protection would then move the whole industry into the 21st Century and allow the free market to control which local channels succeed.:sure:


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> That no one else could use the same radio frequencies in a defined area (not defined by DMA) was a significant governmental protection.


Yet the FCC and its forebearers were created in order to manage these frequencies for the public interest...


phrelin said:


> Perhaps if we just opened up these frequencies to any and all potential amateur TV operators much like ham radio frequencies, the resulting chaos would cause the networks to abandon the local channels.


So what you are saying is that "the resulting chaos" is in the public interest?


phrelin said:


> Then there came the rule that prohibited bringing in duplicate programming from outside the area, another significant governmental protection.


Technically, that rule existed in the form of a contract between the syndicator and the broadcaster. When the Supreme Court inconveniently forgot the laws and ruled in favor of Fortnightly, the government had to act to stop the nullification of those contracts.

And I'll still go back to one of the original arguments...

The largest four markets in television have their affiliates owned by the network. So until someone can convince a network to abandon that model and write-off a couple billion dollar investment for something "new", nothing will change in the business of TV.


phrelin said:


> I realize there are private complex legal arrangements between affiliates and networks. But the fact is that the license granting the exclusive use of a piece of the public's airwaves underlies the entire private contract structure and that is a significant governmental protection.


Good. When can I expect my new car from the government? Cars that are sold at dealerships are obviously trucked into a dealer using roads that federal money built. Therefore, the entire underlying business is built on selling vehicles delivered using federally-funded infrastructure, and I deserve to have a say in how that infrastructure can benefit me.

Now where can I pickup my Ferrari?


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> Yet the FCC and its forebearers were created in order to manage these frequencies for the public interest...So what you are saying is that "the resulting chaos" is in the public interest?Technically, that rule existed in the form of a contract between the syndicator and the broadcaster. When the Supreme Court inconveniently forgot the laws and ruled in favor of Fortnightly, the government had to act to stop the nullification of those contracts.
> 
> And I'll still go back to one of the original arguments...
> 
> The largest four markets in television have their affiliates owned by the network. So until someone can convince a network to abandon that model and write-off a couple billion dollar investment for something "new", nothing will change in the business of TV.Good. When can I expect my new car from the government? Cars that are sold at dealerships are obviously trucked into a dealer using roads that federal money built. Therefore, the entire underlying business is built on selling vehicles delivered using federally-funded infrastructure, and I deserve to have a say in how that infrastructure can benefit me.
> 
> Now where can I pickup my Ferrari?


When will the government pass a law that says I can only buy from my local car dealer? When will the government say that I can no longer "Drive a little and save a lot in Gilroy"? Why should the broadcasters receive this special protection that the local car dealership does not receive?


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> When will the government pass a law that says I can only buy from my local car dealer? When will the government say that I can no longer "Drive a little and save a lot in Gilroy"? Why should the broadcasters receive this special protection that the local car dealership does not receive?


So let's expand on this...

Dish Network could contract with WLS, the ABC affiliate out of Chicago, and broadcast the station. As of 1998, there were two basic choices, based on this issue:

Copyright holders would need to clear their programming

1) WLS would have to contact each copyright holder to clear their programming, and if none objected, then WLS could be broadcast nationwide.

2) If any copyright holder countered with an area, then WLS would inform Dish Network where the rebroadcast could be delivered, and the rebroadcast would be limited to that area.

On December 28, 1999, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (or SHVIA for short) created a special copyright exemption to allow for in-market rebroadcast of a local channel, so that clearing the copyrights was not an issue. So...

If you want WLS broadcast nationwide, ask Dish Network to have WLS to clear their programming nationally, and not use the license in the SHVIA. And with that proves two points:

1) the SHVIA does not give any special protection, as the license does not have to be used, and,
2) the SHVIA does not prohibit receiving out-of-market feeds as long as the copyrights are cleared.

The SHVIA only makes it easier to receive in-market feeds. Without the SHVIA's predecesors or successors, there would be no network TV on satellite.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> When will the government pass a law that says I can only buy from my local car dealer? When will the government say that I can no longer "Drive a little and save a lot in Gilroy"? Why should the broadcasters receive this special protection that the local car dealership does not receive?


Have car dealerships asked for such protection? Broadcasters have.

Broadcasters went to court and WON the right to prevent anyone from rebroadcasting their signal ... even to a customer next to their tower site ... without permission.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> So let's expand on this...
> 
> Dish Network could contract with WLS, the ABC affiliate out of Chicago, and broadcast the station. As of 1998, there were two basic choices, based on this issue:
> 
> Copyright holders would need to clear their programming
> 
> 1) WLS would have to contact each copyright holder to clear their programming, and if none objected, then WLS could be broadcast nationwide.
> 
> 2) If any copyright holder countered with an area, then WLS would inform Dish Network where the rebroadcast could be delivered, and the rebroadcast would be limited to that area.
> 
> On December 28, 1999, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (or SHVIA for short) created a special copyright exemption to allow for in-market rebroadcast of a local channel, so that clearing the copyrights was not an issue. So...
> 
> If you want WLS broadcast nationwide, ask Dish Network to have WLS to clear their programming nationally, and not use the license in the SHVIA. And with that proves two points:
> 
> 1) the SHVIA does not give any special protection, as the license does not have to be used, and,
> 2) the SHVIA does not prohibit receiving out-of-market feeds as long as the copyrights are cleared.
> 
> The SHVIA only makes it easier to receive in-market feeds. Without the SHVIA's predecesors or successors, there would be no network TV on satellite.


As I understand the law, a distant station can be broadcast under the SHVERA license into another market if the market is a short market and the distant fills the missing network slot, or the local station of the same network gives a waiver, or if the viewer undergoes and passes a cumbersome and expensive reception test. So the issue at this point is with the local station and protecting that station from competition.

And part of what is really wrong with the law is local stations are claiming vast areas, sometimes over a hundred miles from the transmitter and over several mountain ranges, and blocking viewers in those areas from receiving distant stations. And those areas are in no way served OTA by the local stations, regardless of deployment of an antenna 30 or more feet in the air.

Distant stations were imported into markets via cable for decades and local stations survived. Why are we now in crisis mode?


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> As I understand the law, a distant station can be broadcast under the SHVERA license into another market if the market is a short market and the distant fills the missing network slot, or the local station of the same network gives a waiver, or if the viewer undergoes and passes a cumbersome and expensive reception test. So the issue at this point is with the local station and protecting that station from competition.


Yes, but the key words here are "under SHVERA". The license provided doesn't have to be used.


runner861 said:


> Distant stations were imported into markets via cable for decades and local stations survived. Why are we now in crisis mode?


I'm not in crisis mode; everyone else is, while trying to find some way to make the networks have a cable- or satellite-only feed and bypassing their affiliates, only because it is the way they believe TV should be.

Regarding the distants on cable, I refer back to Fortnightly. If anyone needs a primer, the case is _United Artists v. Fortnightly_. Talk about legislating from the bench.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> Distant stations were imported into markets via cable for decades and local stations survived. Why are we now in crisis mode?


We're decades past "now" ... the only "crisis" seems to be among people who disagree with the way it was settled. Perhaps the "now" is coming from people leaving cable for satellite? Or people who want HD where their local affiliate is not rebroadcast in HD and the new ATSC signal is too weak to be received?

There have been some adjustments ... six years ago stations were given protection for their entire market on satellite instead of having customers receive distants where a satellite delivered local was available. SV stations were also added six years ago. The laws are still not perfect. Perhaps in four years the next adjustment will be better.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> We're decades past "now" ... the only "crisis" seems to be among people who disagree with the way it was settled. Perhaps the "now" is coming from people leaving cable for satellite? Or people who want HD where their local affiliate is not rebroadcast in HD and the new ATSC signal is too weak to be received?
> 
> There have been some adjustments ... six years ago stations were given protection for their entire market on satellite instead of having customers receive distants where a satellite delivered local was available. SV stations were also added six years ago. The laws are still not perfect. Perhaps in four years the next adjustment will be better.


I understand what you are saying. What is upsetting to me is the protections being accorded to stations when they do not reach a location OTA. Stations are receiving protections when their signal does not reach the location due to distance, or terrain, or both. My feeling, and it is just my feeling, is that a station does not deserve protection when it does not serve the location OTA. Even if the local is available via satellite, I don't believe that the local should receive protection if it does not serve the area OTA--that is, is the station's signal receivable in the location OTA.

As I understand it, SHVERA called for the FCC to determine a standard for assessing whether a station is receivable, and what type of equipment would be required. Perhaps you have more information on this issue. If you do, I would be interested to hear it.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, but the key words here are "under SHVERA". The license provided doesn't have to be used.I'm not in crisis mode; everyone else is, while trying to find some way to make the networks have a cable- or satellite-only feed and bypassing their affiliates, only because it is the way they believe TV should be.
> 
> Regarding the distants on cable, I refer back to Fortnightly. If anyone needs a primer, the case is _United Artists v. Fortnightly_. Talk about legislating from the bench.


Can you give me the cite on Fortnightly?


----------



## phrelin

I guess I should make myself clear on one thing - for nearly 50 years I was fine with the legal structure put in place in the 1940's and 1950's.

It just needed to be trashed in late 1990's or early 2000's. And I know that's theoretical only, because it's nearly impossible to start over once a legal mountain like the one we have now is in place supported by so many vested interests.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> My feeling, and it is just my feeling, is that a station does not deserve protection when it does not serve the location OTA.


That was one of the big changes six years ago ... stations were only protected within their (then analog) coverage area. SHVERA changed that so they were protected anywhere in their market (plus the Grade B out of their market). IIRC STELA change it so the protection ended at the market edge for short markets. (A station could have Grade B coverage extending into a neighboring market and a distant can now be carried without waiver.)

Yes, it is all messed up. Get rid of "consent to carry" and make all stations "must carry" in their market and any SV areas and you'll make me happy. But that is a different part of the law.



> As I understand it, SHVERA called for the FCC to determine a standard for assessing whether a station is receivable, and what type of equipment would be required. Perhaps you have more information on this issue. If you do, I would be interested to hear it.


I believe the FCC is still working on it. It has only been six years. 

I believe the FCC is still behind because of the problems with digital conversion. They are still using analog grade B as a reference for the area that digital stations should cover through their primary signal and/or boosters/translators. For now I believe analog grade B would remain the reference for coverage area ... even though no station is broadcasting an analog signal. (Low powers don't have the same protection definitions.)


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> Stations are receiving protections when their signal does not reach the location due to distance, or terrain, or both. My feeling, and it is just my feeling, is that a station does not deserve protection when it does not serve the location OTA.


"We need local channels to compete" - paraphrased from the satellite providers in 1999.

And after five years of receiving local channels, the local-into-local legislation was changed in 2004 so that if local channels are offered to you, it would require a subscriber to jump through hoops to get something other than local channels.

"...a station does not deserve protection when it does not serve the location OTA."

So, if someone lives in an area where they cannot pick-up their local station over-the-air, there needs to be an alternative means to pick up network programming. Enter cable and satellite. If both the cable and satellite company can provide you with that local channel, why would there need to be an alternative?

"Stations are receiving protections when their signal does not reach the location due to distance, or terrain, or both."

And that is the trap. Until 1999, the DBS providers were using the oudated Satellite Home Viewers Act of 1988. They wanted local channels, they got them with the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act of 1999. The complaints are about a government-created license that restricts people to local channels, but there aren't complaints about the government-created license that the DBS providers were all found guilty of violating?

In a nutshell...

DirecTV
Dish Network 
Primestar
PrimeTime24

were each found guilty (or in Primestar's case, settled before trial) of violating the distant network provisions in the SHVA. The government had a vested interest to change the rules as no one was following the law. And remember, without that law, there would have been zero network affilates rebroadcasting on satellite.


runner861 said:


> Can you give me the cite on Fortnightly?


Sure. This link should do the trick. Pay special attention to the dissent from Justice Fortas.


----------



## HarveyLA

Los Angeles PBS flagship station KCET announced it is dropping PBS to become an independent station. (I mentioned this threat earlier). 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-1009-kcet-20101009,0,3424989.story
The L.A. Times says this casts a "dark cloud" over the future of PBS, quoting a media analyst whose opinion is that PBS is no longer relevant. However, KCET says this will give them the opportunity to provide new programming from other sources. Whether KCET can still attract donors, remains to be seen. KOCE, Orange County, seems destined to become the future primary PBS affiliate in L.A.
A possible deal for the four noncommercial stations in the L.A. area to share PBS programs has still not been ruled out.
Interpret this as you will. I say, if there were only a few PBS national feeds and no local PBS stations anymore , KCET would not still be around to strike out on a new creative venture. It is still eligible for government funding thru CPB.


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> This link should do the trick. Pay special attention to the dissent from Justice Fortas.


I was involved in the licensing by a small city of a new cable system five years after this ruling. I remember being puzzled by Fortas' take in this paragraph:


> At the same time, the implications of any decision we may reach as to the copyright liability of CATV are very great. On the one hand, it is darkly predicted that the imposition of full liability upon all CATV operations could result in the demise of this new, important instrument of mass communications; or in its becoming a tool of the powerful networks which hold a substantial number of copyrights on materials used in the television industry. On the other hand, it is foreseen that a decision to the effect that CATV systems never infringe the copyrights of the programs they carry would permit such systems to overpower local broadcasting stations which must pay, directly or indirectly, for copyright licenses and with which CATV is in increasing competition.


I never understood how anyone could think CATV infringes on copyright.

Broadcast stations were licensed to broadcast signals to viewers without charge, a long standing tradition in the radio and TV business. Their control of the copyright ended at the tower and those producing the content who were paid for that content understood.

With regard to distants, if the content producer is paid by the station and network from advertising revenue as intended in broadcasting, the economics are straightforward for the content producer who is selling the content.

Of course, that doesn't address public policy with regard to a system of licensing stations to send out signals only in a limited geographic area. But in my opinion, once you sell something that is going to be broadcast, your control over the copyright ends at the tower. If you think your copyright is being abused within this system, find a customer other than broadcast TV.

Again, just my opinion which apparently nobody in Congress agrees with in 2010.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I was involved in the licensing by a small city of a new cable system five years after this ruling. I remember being puzzled by Fortas' take in this paragraph: I never understood how anyone could think CATV infringes on copyright.


Direct live rebroadcast within the broadcast license area - all the cable system is doing is allowing their customers to share an antenna. But what about delayed broadcasts, rebroadcasts or transmissions outside of the station's licensed coverage? That is where copying steps in.

A complete lift on copyright would allow a cable system to record content and potentially play it back multiple times. While TV on tape and DVD is a reasonably new concept a cable provider providing replays of content violates the content owner's rights. Content owners can't sell tapes rebroadcasts as easily if the cable companies are providing rebroadcasts without paying the content owners.

The local station ONLY bought rights as an affiliate for their contract defined coverage area. Transmitting a station far beyond it's licensed area could infringe on the contracted rights of another station.



> Broadcast stations were licensed to broadcast signals to viewers without charge, a long standing tradition in the radio and TV business. Their control of the copyright ended at the tower and those producing the content who were paid for that content understood.


An easier thing to say before home recording devices were made affordable. In the modern world copyright doesn't end. We've been given a loophole for "private in-home viewing" but just because something is broadcast in the clear or OTA does NOT release copyright on the content nor make it royalty free.



> With regard to distants, if the content producer is paid by the station and network from advertising revenue as intended in broadcasting, the economics are straightforward for the content producer who is selling the content.


The content owner's license to that station is for a specific coverage area. Not the whole world. Other restrictions (such as one airing and time of airing) may also apply.



> Of course, that doesn't address public policy with regard to a system of licensing stations to send out signals only in a limited geographic area. But in my opinion, once you sell something that is going to be broadcast, your control over the copyright ends at the tower. If you think your copyright is being abused within this system, find a customer other than broadcast TV.


The geographic broadcast licenses (ignoring content ans broadcast licenses are not content based) are designed to reduce and eliminate interference between broadcasters. Perhaps technology has reached a point where a "nationwide" license would be possible ... but it would take a lot of channel shifting to make it work. This is separate from content licensing. Content could be licensed by DMA or by state or by region ... that is up to the content provider. It is their content to sell.



> Again, just my opinion which apparently nobody in Congress agrees with in 2010.


Too busy fighting over other things. After all ... this is only TV. The next round will be in 2013. Stay tuned.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> The next round will be in 2013. Stay tuned.


Probably 2013.

But Rupert Murdoch versus Charles Ergen & Charles Dolan has the potential to move that up. Stubborn billionaires, you know.


----------



## runner861

Now that KCET will leave PBS, what does this do with the deal that Dish may have to uplink some PBS stations in order to not fall under the deadlines imposed in STELA? KCET is one of the stations uplinked, but not available, in HD.

Also, I wonder if this is some sort of negotiating ploy by KCET. The departure from PBS is not effective until January 1, and I heard that KCET made the announcement of the departure public before notifying PBS. There is still a chance things can be patched up. As I understand it, KCET wanted to stay with PBS but felt that PBS was demanding way too much money. There had been ongoing negotiations.

Los Angeles is the number two market, and KCET has studios on the edge of Hollywood on a large, historical lot. It is the location where Mr. Rogers made a personal appearance in 1969 or 1970 or so and the kids were lined up with their parents down Sunset Blvd. That is when PBS first realized that "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" was huge.

I just don't think that PBS will let this station go. Who knows, I could be wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.

A couple of years ago, KOCE (the Orange County PBS station) made rumblings about leaving PBS. Things were patched up. Now people are saying that this station may become the primary PBS outlet in Los Angeles, or a consortium of stations, including KVCR, a station located 50 miles away in San Bernardino, will become the part-time PBS stations serving Los Angeles. The signal from KVCR is not receivable OTA throughout much of the Los Angeles area.

This story of KCET leaving PBS just sounds fishy to me.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> Now that KCET will leave PBS, what does this do with the deal that Dish may have to uplink some PBS stations in order to not fall under the deadlines imposed in STELA? KCET is one of the stations uplinked, but not available, in HD.


Without seeing the deal that DISH has with someone it is hard to say if KCET is part of that deal or if DISH is planning on uplinking them outside of the deal.

One question that might be able to be answered ... does a station have to be a PBS member station to be "qualified noncommercial educational television station"?
(6) QUALIFIED NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION STATION.-The term 'qualified noncommercial educational television station' means any full-power television broadcast station that-

(A) under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on March 29, 1990, is licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial educational broadcast station and is owned and operated by a public agency, nonprofit foundation, nonprofit corporation, or nonprofit association; and

(B) has as its licensee an entity that is eligible to receive a community service grant, or any successor grant thereto, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or any successor organization thereto, on the basis of the formula set forth in section 396(k)(6)(B) of this title.​Would KCET no longer be "qualified" if they were not an affiliate?


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> Without seeing the deal that DISH has with someone it is hard to say if KCET is part of that deal or if DISH is planning on uplinking them outside of the deal.
> 
> One question that might be able to be answered ... does a station have to be a PBS member station to be "qualified noncommercial educational television station"?
> (6) QUALIFIED NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION STATION.-The term 'qualified noncommercial educational television station' means any full-power television broadcast station that-
> 
> (A) under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on March 29, 1990, is licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial educational broadcast station and is owned and operated by a public agency, nonprofit foundation, nonprofit corporation, or nonprofit association; and
> 
> (B) has as its licensee an entity that is eligible to receive a community service grant, or any successor grant thereto, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or any successor organization thereto, on the basis of the formula set forth in section 396(k)(6)(B) of this title.​Would KCET no longer be "qualified" if they were not an affiliate?


I think that KCET will still be qualified even if the station is no longer an affiliate from just a quick read. And Dish has kept its deal, if there is one, pretty quiet, so we don't really know why Dish has uplinked KCET HD. And I doubt that this station will leave PBS anyway.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> Broadcast stations were licensed to broadcast signals to viewers without charge, a long standing tradition in the radio and TV business. Their control of the copyright ended at the tower and those producing the content who were paid for that content understood.


There were other rulings in there, as well. Fortas was puzzled by the fact that SCOTUS about 50 years earlier has found that pumping programming into a hotel room via a cable was copyright infringement.

The copyright exemption for cable is exactly the same as the anti-trust exemption for baseball. And neither should have been given.


----------



## jsk

runner861 said:


> Also, I wonder if this is some sort of negotiating ploy by KCET. The departure from PBS is not effective until January 1


I could be wrong, but it looks like both PBS and KCET have broken up and have no interest in getting back together.

See:

http://www.kcet.org/about/ask-al/ask-al-kcet-goes-independent.html

Also, PBS is already talking about working with other area PBS stations about taking up the slack. KCET is talking about working with PBS to make the transition smooth.

I guess on January 1, E* could provide KCET in HD (assuming that they can get an agreement with the station).


----------



## HarveyLA

jsk said:


> I guess on January 1, E* could provide KCET in HD (assuming that they can get an agreement with the station).


IF the info. I obtained recently is correct, (post #147) the agreement with (at least) 30 stations was between Dish and PBS, and no local stations were involved. KCET is still a PBS member until Jan. 1, so I suspect Dish could activate the stations in HD before then to avoid a separate agreement with KCET. Even so, I doubt that it is an issue because these stations want very much to be carried in HD.
On another point that was raised, KCET definitely will still qualify as a legitimate noncommercial station under STELA. According to the L.A. Times, CPB issued a statement saying KCET will still be eligible for government funding.

As far as KOCE is concerned, they are expecting to take over as the primary PBS station in L.A.
From the Orange County Register: _"We assume we'll be picking up the majority of that," said Mel Rogers, president of KOCE. "They (KCET) have done a good job for public television over the years and it's time for us to step into the breach."_


----------



## mlcarson

It would have been in the public interest to have just shutdown all of the TV broadcasting stations instead of having a digital transition. Download national newscasts to receivers for play on-demand. The public airwaves have better uses than TV at this point when you can distribute all of the networks to the entire nation via satellite. The current broadcast model is archaic. But I guess we just have to have our local commercials.... The world would have been better if we were arguing over whether to receive the networks over satellite or via Internet.

With regard to PBS, I can't imagine why there would have to be more than 1 for the entire country -- let alone why we need more than 1 for a DMA like LA. If we have to have broadcast stations, they should be required to be in HD and not just digital.


----------



## kenglish

mlcarson said:


> It would have been in the public interest to have just shutdown all of the TV broadcasting stations instead of having a digital transition....The public airwaves have better uses than TV at this point when you can distribute all of the networks to the entire nation via satellite. The current broadcast model is archaic.


But, you could also say that there are better uses for spectrum than the current fads of sending text messages, playing "Farmville", and posting endless photos of a person's every move on Facebook and Twitter, too. 
It seems that the "need" for wireless bandwidth seems to follow the introduction of every new "app", needed or not.

As for PBS, the individual stations produce lots of their own programming. It's not just a national feed being retransmitted.


----------



## w0wy

Why not just include OTA tuner like the one that VIP722 used to have? Get all the local channels for free. An OTA antenna like terk tv-42 could also be included I guess.


----------



## phrelin

w0wy said:


> Why not just include OTA tuner like the one that VIP722 used to have? Get all the local channels for free. An OTA antenna like terk tv-42 could also be included I guess.


My 722 and 612 both have an OTA tuner. I just don't have the 1200' tower I'd need to maybe get a digital signal. Nor do any of my neighbors.


----------



## HarveyLA

This is not exactly earthshaking news, but Dish has lost another round in the puzzling legal battle over the PBS-HD requirement passed by Congress. Dish asked for a stay last year. It was refused. They appealed that decision to the Federal Appeals court. That appeal has now been rejected. The appeals court's decision makes for interesting reading, thoroughly dismissing Dish's argument. What's really puzzling however, is why Dish continues to pursue this in the courts, having already satisfied the new law by signing up 30 PBS stations in HD (including my own local stations, I'm happy to say). Would they take those stations away if they manage to ultimately win the suit? And by then, the previous (agreed to) timetable would mean most if not all PBS locals would be in HD.
Here is the complete text of the appeals court's ruling.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In FCO 20110224138.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR


----------



## tampa8

I agree with you. We must be missing something, but to go this far over this just does not make sense to me at this point.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The interesting thing to me... about PBS in particular... is that while passing a bill to enforce carriage over cable/sat... there are others trying to push for a new bill to stop federal funding for those same PBS stations.

So... the government would then be in a position of forcing you to support something that they just ruled they shouldn't force you to support...


----------



## tampa8

I think that can be explained by being in between administrations. If many of the present lawmakers in Congress had their way many mandates might not exist. Once established it is hard to get rid of.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> The interesting thing to me... about PBS in particular... is that while passing a bill to enforce carriage over cable/sat... there are others trying to push for a new bill to stop federal funding for those same PBS stations.
> 
> So... the government would then be in a position of forcing you to support something that they just ruled they shouldn't force you to support...


 Actually, I think Charlie misjudged the irritability of PBS viewers like me. Some Bay Area PBS viewers are represented by Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and can be very ... persistent, shall we say. Not carrying KQED was, and still is, an affront to our very being.

But really, appealing for injunctive relief on First Amendment issues is just the usual Charlie trying to stall and make it expensive for his opponent. There was no chance a court would buy that.


----------



## runner861

phrelin said:


> But really, appealing for injunctive relief on First Amendment issues is just the usual Charlie trying to stall and make it expensive for his opponent. There was no chance a court would buy that.


His opponent was the United States, not some smaller company that he could hope to outspend and shower with paper. He can spend as much as he wants, the US government can go toe to toe with him as long as it takes.


----------



## phrelin

runner861 said:


> His opponent was the United States, not some smaller company that he could hope to outspend and shower with paper. He can spend as much as he wants, the US government can go toe to toe with him as long as it takes.


I didn't say he's at the top of his game on this one, just that he's marching through the steps of his normal litigation pattern. He's like a football coach that has a playbook he's been using for 20 years. It worked against another team in 1991, so....


----------



## runner861

phrelin said:


> I didn't say he's at the top of his game on this one, just that he's marching through the steps of his normal litigation pattern. He's like a football coach that has a playbook he's been using for 20 years. It worked against another team in 1991, so....


I agree, he has no sense about what to litigate and what to concede. He was castigated by the Court of Appeals in the distant network lawsuit back in 2006. That's another example of his lack of judgment when it comes to legal matters. His strategy didn't work there either.


----------



## James Long

It is his money and his company is turning a profit. I'll let him make the decisions.

Conceding on a regular basis isn't a good way to win. It can't be costing him that much to fight this particular one. Maybe he has enough legal action to get a quantity discount.


----------



## phrelin

I'm telling you, we need a whole forum section or whatever they're called just to keep up with Dish litigation.

Anyone have any idea how the Rainbow Media lawsuit's going? I'd bring up the thread but it's buried.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> I'm telling you, we need a whole forum section or whatever they're called just to keep up with Dish litigation.


Charlie doesn't need the encouragement. (Egren, not Sheen. That other Charlie gets enough attention.)



> Anyone have any idea how the Rainbow Media lawsuit's going? I'd bring up the thread but it's buried.


There was a four week jury trial scheduled to begin April 5th, but that has been stayed (as of last Monday).


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> I'm telling you, we need a whole forum section or whatever they're called just to keep up with Dish litigation.
> 
> Anyone have any idea how the Rainbow Media lawsuit's going? I'd bring up the thread but it's buried.


I've forgotten about Rainbow Media. I've never watched any of their channels since AMC had infomercials at night.


----------



## nmetro

Add IFC to the infomercial/ commercial band awagon. One reason why Sundance is now available on channel 390.


----------



## James Long

nmetro said:


> Add IFC to the infomercial/ commercial band awagon. One reason why Sundance is now available on channel 390.


389 ... Having the additional channels adds value to "DISH Platinum" (formerly known as HD Platinum and Platinum HD). Hopefully the four SD channels in Platinum will become HD some day.


----------



## phrelin

Anyone know the status of this lawsuit or the December 31, 2011 deadline? Can I expect to see my PBS stations in HD in January? Or am I stuck now until January 2014?


----------



## HarveyLA

_Anyone know the status of this lawsuit or the December 31, 2011 deadline? Can I expect to see my PBS stations in HD in January? Or am I stuck now until January 2014?_

As we know, Dish signed up 30 PBS stations in HD last year, thereby meeting the law's requirement and avoiding the Dec. 2011 deadline to carry all PBS stations in HD. Dish's appeal went nowhere. In practical terms, that battle is over.
The best hope to get your PBS in HD now seems to be the original timetable for carrrying all available local HD stations in HD, which is not in dispute:

they must achieve compliance in
fifteen percent of the markets in which they carry local chan-
nels in HD by Feb. 17, 2010; thirty percent by Feb. 17, 2011;
sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012; and one-hundred percent by
Feb. 17, 2013.

_________________________
keep your eye on uplink testing activity early next year and hope for the best!


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> 389 ... Having the additional channels adds value to "DISH Platinum" (formerly known as HD Platinum and Platinum HD). Hopefully the four SD channels in Platinum will become HD some day.


Lets hope so.


----------



## phrelin

I'm sorry if this seems overly complicated, but I've been ... irked ... for some time because Dish has not provided the San Francisco Bay Area with its award winning PBS affiliate KQED in HD. Anyway...


phrelin said:


> Paul Secic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coolman302003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1 change seen 10/20/11 at 2:51pm ET (v04)
> 
> Other Changes*
> 6446 KCSM (60 HD) SAN MATEO, CA (PBS) 129° 1s16 (North California) HD San Fransisco, CA market *TEST* Hidden - EPG Added
> 
> 8411 Channels
> 
> 
> 
> When will KCSM be available?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume this has something to do with the December 31, 2011 legal deadline although I don't know where the DISH NETWORK CORP. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION legal case stands. I'm bringing up the case related thread to see if anyone knows where things stand.
Click to expand...




HarveyLA said:


> phrelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know the status of this lawsuit or the December 31, 2011 deadline? Can I expect to see my PBS stations in HD in January? Or am I stuck now until January 2014?
> 
> 
> 
> As we know, Dish signed up 30 PBS stations in HD last year, thereby meeting the law's requirement and avoiding the Dec. 2011 deadline to carry all PBS stations in HD. Dish's appeal went nowhere. In practical terms, that battle is over.
> 
> The best hope to get your PBS in HD now seems to be the original timetable for carrrying all available local HD stations in HD, which is not in dispute:
> 
> they must achieve compliance in
> fifteen percent of the markets in which they carry local chan-
> nels in HD by Feb. 17, 2010; thirty percent by Feb. 17, 2011;
> sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012; and one-hundred percent by
> Feb. 17, 2013.
> 
> _________________________
> keep your eye on uplink testing activity early next year and hope for the best!
Click to expand...

OK, based on the explanation of where things are, I have this nagging feeling that Dish will get some kind of credit for KCSM, which is not a PBS station, towards the "sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012" requirement. I'm not exactly sure if the rule applies only to PBS or if stations like KCSM also are included.

Per Wikipedia:


> KCSM-TV, virtual channel 60, is an independent, non-commercial television station located in San Mateo, California, USA. Until 2009, KCSM-TV was a PBS member station.[1] Then, it dropped PBS in a cost-cutting move and became an independent public television station (in a similar manner to southern California public TV giant KCET).
> 
> Owned by the San Mateo County Community College District with sister radio station KCSM (FM), the station serves the San Francisco Bay Area from studios at the College of San Mateo. KCSM-TV operates 24-hours a day with a focus toward adult education. During weekdays it offers college-level Distance learning telecourses and in prime-time/weekends provides locally-produced and a wide array of syndicated programming.


I hope they're just testing KCSM in HD as part of a plan to provide our DMA with PBS HD coverage.

KCSM would not be in any way an acceptable alternative to the PBS affiliate KQED.


----------



## Jim5506

When dealing with onorous government edicts it is standard proceedure to meet the letter of the law while still not meeting the intent of the law.

That's the way the game is played.

If you force me to carry a non-profit station in HD in every DMA, I'll show you - I'll carry the crappiest one there is wherever I can.

This is not unlike the requirement that full DMA's in HD must be carried by certain mileposts. The carriers just stopped adding new DMA's so they would not have to carry the majors and the crappers in all the DMA's where HD was carried.

The PBS snob-lobby pushed this through flaunting the real market forces that would have fixed everything eventually - unintended consequences again.


----------



## HarveyLA

_I have this nagging feeling that Dish will get some kind of credit for KCSM, which is not a PBS station, towards the "sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012" requirement. I'm not exactly sure if the rule applies only to PBS or if stations like KCSM also are included._

To clarify, the Feb. 17, 2012 requirement is not based on PBS or any noncommercial stations specifically, but all available HD Stations in a given market. All HD stations in 60% of the markets must be carried by Feb. 17, 2012. At this point, Dish could still select small and medium markets, saving many of the top markets for the final deadline a year hence. That just depends on how they calculate their available satellite capacity and what combination, in their opinion, attracts the most customers or keeps them from switching to another service.

They are no longer under any obligation to add PBS or any other noncommercial stations on an individual basis, only complete markets in HD.


----------



## phrelin

HarveyLA said:


> _I have this nagging feeling that Dish will get some kind of credit for KCSM, which is not a PBS station, towards the "sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012" requirement. I'm not exactly sure if the rule applies only to PBS or if stations like KCSM also are included._
> 
> To clarify, the Feb. 17, 2012 requirement is not based on PBS or any noncommercial stations specifically, but all available HD Stations in a given market. All HD stations in 60% of the markets must be carried by Feb. 17, 2012. At this point, Dish could still select small and medium markets, saving many of the top markets for the final deadline a year hence. That just depends on how they calculate their available satellite capacity and what combination, in their opinion, attracts the most customers or keeps them from switching to another service.
> 
> They are no longer under any obligation to add PBS or any other noncommercial stations on an individual basis, only complete markets in HD.


Thanks for the clarification. This even gives me a slight bit of hope. If Dish is testing the uplink of the independent non-commercial KCSM then maybe they will add the SF Bay Area DMA this time around.

Dish already is feeding KQET which is nothing but a repeater of KQED in the Monterey DMA. So maybe they've worked things out with Northern California Public Broadcasting, Inc. on issues such as what to do with the old KTEH which in July was renamed KQEH and rebranded as KQED+.

Dish is not the only one here that can be criticized.

There is one other PBS station in the DMA, KRCB in the North Bay. Basically PBS affliliates along with KCSM will chew up most, if not all, of a transponder.

In fact, two channels would be fine. The locally produced programming from KQED and KRCB plus the PBS lineup could be handled on one channel. It would be much better for the public if the PBS Kids Sprout and PBS World content were offered on a second HD feed. A third could be KCSM but I can't get very excited about it.

Of course, that's just my opinion, it's free, worth every penny, and carries the impact of a one old guy's personal opinion - totally ineffectual.


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> Thanks for the clarification. This even gives me a slight bit of hope. If Dish is testing the uplink of the independent non-commercial KCSM then maybe they will add the SF Bay Area DMA this time around.
> 
> Dish already is feeding KQET which is nothing but a repeater of KQED in the Monterey DMA. So maybe they've worked things out with Northern California Public Broadcasting, Inc. on issues such as what to do with the old KTEH which in July was renamed KQEH and rebranded as KQED+.
> 
> Dish is not the only one here that can be criticized.
> 
> There is one other PBS station in the DMA, KRCB in the North Bay. Basically PBS affliliates along with KCSM will chew up most, if not all, of a transponder.
> 
> In fact, two channels would be fine. The locally produced programming from KQED and KRCB plus the PBS lineup could be handled on one channel. It would be much better for the public if the PBS Kids Sprout and PBS World content were offered on a second HD feed. A third could be KCSM but I can't get very excited about it.
> 
> Of course, that's just my opinion, it's free, worth every penny, and carries the impact of a one old guy's personal opinion - totally ineffectual.


As of 5:30 PM KRCB last night it's in HD.


----------



## Dave

Is the requirement for HD or just a Digital broadcast. Digital is not HD.


----------



## phrelin

I forgot to post this that appeared Wednesday in The Evening Bridge:


> DISH wants the Supremes to rule on various aspects of the government's must carry rules. The specific appeal asks the High Court to review a Ninth Circuit Appeals court decision relating to rules over carriage of non-commercial HD signals in advance of other stations. The outcome, if the Supremes accept and agree, could upend current must-carry regs.


On the other hand, the outcome, if the Supremes don't accept and agree, would not upend current must-carry regs.



Paul Secic said:


> As of 5:30 PM KRCB last night it's in HD.


Paul, I'm not getting HD nor do I see it in the guides on my 722 or 612. From what I see, Dish feeds the 16:9 aspect original HD signal but in SD while on KQED sometimes they feed 16:9 letterboxed or 4:3.


Dave said:


> Is the requirement for HD or just a Digital broadcast. Digital is not HD.


My understanding it is HD.


----------



## HarveyLA

Here is a lot more detail, and background, on Dish's "must carry" appeal to the U.S. Supreme court. By the time this ever gets resolved one way or the other, it seems to me the Feb. 2013 voluntary deadline will have been reached- or close to it. So why bother?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/475799-DISH_Seeks_Supremes_Call_On_STELA_HD_Mandate.php


----------



## 356B

I just noticed KQED is in HD....duh.....probably old news.


----------



## phrelin

356B said:


> I just noticed KQED is in HD....duh.....probably old news.


No it's not old news as the last Uplink Activity thread was for November and the last report showed it still hidden. I'll start a thread to let others know.


----------



## phrelin

HarveyLA said:


> Here is a lot more detail, and background, on Dish's "must carry" appeal to the U.S. Supreme court. By the time this ever gets resolved one way or the other, it seems to me the Feb. 2013 voluntary deadline will have been reached- or close to it. So why bother?
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/475799-DISH_Seeks_Supremes_Call_On_STELA_HD_Mandate.php


While the lawsuit was an attempt by Dish to delay the "must carry."

But the law creates idiotic situations like in the Bay Area which results in a non-PBS station community college station and a sorta, kinda PBS station in Cotati, CA (where?) chews up HD bandwidth unnecessarily, just so that 98% of Bay Area PBS viewers can watch award winning content on KQED, one of the most-watched PBS stations in the country during primetime.

To quote the Wikipedia entry:


> Noteworthy KQED television productions include the first installment of Armistead Maupin's miniseries T_ales of the City_, _Tongues Untied_ by Marlon Riggs, and a series of programs focusing on the historic neighborhoods in San Francisco, such as The Castro and The Fillmore District. Ongoing productions include _California Connected_, C_heck, Please! Bay Area_, _Spark_, T_his Week in Northern California_ and _QUEST_.
> 
> ...KQED was organized and created by veteran broadcast journalists James Day and Jonathan Rice on June 1, 1953 and first went on air April 5, 1954. It was the sixth public broadcasting station in the United States....


It has been broadcast in HD since 2000, but I just got access to it sometime after 12/1/2011.

In reading the article you link, it also looks like Charlie has a strong "you can't do that to me" opinion, which also means that he'll pursue this well after any deadline if he has to.

:rant:
I also think Congress overreached here catering to a constituency that still lives in the 1960's.

While I go much further saying that we don't need more than one feed of each broadcast network in each time zone, I cannot fathom any rational reason to have to chew up satellite bandwidth to carry 80% duplicate or rerun PBS programming in HD so that the 20% of what is mostly garbage programming pushed by some local ".org" group run by a board of frustrated blowhards can be seen by 45 people in a region of 1,000,000 people.

And I'm sorry, but IMHO the College of San Mateo, a California community college, should not have an automatic legal right to Dish's bandwidth while I'm not getting the local CW station in HD. My CW station is by federal license free in the public airwaves OTA in my DMA, a station that cannot be received OTA by antenna in well over half its DMA geographic area, a station I cannot get in HD because Congress decided Dish is not "my OTA equipment like an antenna" and let's these retrans agreement disputes favor the corporate station owner - CBS - over the public. (Yeah, I know I forget that corporations are people just like you and me.)
:rant:


----------



## dbscpa

phrelin said:


> . . .
> And I'm sorry, but IMHO the College of San Mateo, a California community college, should not have an automatic legal right to Dish's bandwidth while I'm not getting the local CW station in HD. My CW station is by federal license free in the public airwaves OTA in my DMA, a station that cannot be received OTA by antenna in well over half its DMA geographic area, a station I cannot get in HD because Congress decided Dish is not "my OTA equipment like an antenna" and let's these retrans agreement disputes favor the corporate station owner - CBS - over the public. (Yeah, I know I forget that corporations are people just like you and me.)
> :rant:


Thanks for ranting for me. I just got Dish and could not believe that the CW was in SD and that the "non-KQED" PBS stations were in HD. (Where I live I receive virtually no OTA.) Seeing the history that you posted, now I understand why. Watching Maggie Q and Lindsey Fonseca (SF Bay area native) in SD is bumming me out.


----------



## HarveyLA

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by phrelin View Post
> . . .
> And I'm sorry, but IMHO the College of San Mateo, a California community college, should not have an automatic legal right to Dish's bandwidth while I'm not getting the local CW station in HD. My CW station is by federal license free in the public airwaves OTA in my DMA, a station that cannot be received OTA by antenna in well over half its DMA geographic area, a station I cannot get in HD because Congress decided Dish is not "my OTA equipment like an antenna" and let's these retrans agreement disputes favor the corporate station owner - CBS - over the public. (Yeah, I know I forget that corporations are people just like you and me.)
> Thanks for ranting for me. I just got Dish and could not believe that the CW was in SD and that the "non-KQED" PBS stations were in HD. (Where I live I receive virtually no OTA.) Seeing the history that you posted, now I understand why. Watching Maggie Q and Lindsey Fonseca (SF Bay area native) in SD is bumming me out.


As I pointed out in post #222:


> To clarify, the Feb. 17, 2012 requirement is not based on PBS or any noncommercial stations specifically, but all available HD Stations in a given market. All HD stations in 60% of the markets must be carried by Feb. 17, 2012. At this point, Dish could still select small and medium markets, saving many of the top markets for the final deadline a year hence. That just depends on how they calculate their available satellite capacity and what combination, in their opinion, attracts the most customers or keeps them from switching to another service.
> 
> They are no longer under any obligation to add PBS or any other noncommercial stations on an individual basis, only complete markets in HD.


Last year's deal between Dish and 30 noncommercial stations was the only requirement relating specifically to that class of station. For those who have not been following this thread too closely, here was the announcement on 7/29/10



> DISH Avoids STELA Noncom Mandate
> Strikes independent HD carriage deal with 30 noncom stations
> John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 7/29/2010 4:00:52 PM
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/455383-DISH_Avoids_STELA_Noncom_Mandate.php
> 
> Dish Network has managed to avoid the expedited noncommercial high-definition carriage mandate in the newly reauthorized satellite distant signal blanket license law by striking an independent HD distribution agreement with at least 30 noncommercial stations, the company confirmed to Multichannel News.
> 
> But it still plans to challenge the law that forced it to strike that deal.
> 
> . . .
> 
> The No. 2 DBS provider had tried to negotiate a blanket deal with the Association of Public Television Stations, but had failed to do so. The pact was not with APTS, which represents noncoms nationwide, but does include a geographically diverse group of stations, according to the company, which had no comment on when that HD carriage would begin. The law only requred that the deals be struck by July 27.


I am extremely grateful that the above agreement resulted in the adding of three non-com HD stations in Los Angeles, which have been viewed constantly in my house for the past year. They include KOCE which is now the primary PBS outlet in L.A., and KCET which is now a non-PBS station with alternative programming.

The addition of KQED may help satisfy the upcoming Feb. 2012 deadline I referred to above, concerning entire markets in HD. This seems to be a sign that the CW station will also be added before that deadline, and any other locals in the S.F. market that are in HD.


----------

