# Welcome to the SHVIRA forum!



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

We have received some requests to open this new SHVIRA (Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Reauthorization Act) forum. Any news events related to the SHVIRA will be posted here. To learn more about the SHVIA, *Click Here*.

I know some of the subject matter can be a little dry but this legislation affects almost everyone and it should be interesting to see how things unfold.

Thanks to all for suggesting this forum and enjoy!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Of course I get a 10 cent royalty on all posts here right?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Geronimo said:


> Of course I get a 10 cent royalty on all posts here right?


Maybe but all royalties are approved by Nick so you will need to run it by him first.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

There goes my 10 cents. BTW is it SHVIRA or SHVERA? I have seen both referenced.


----------



## mraub (Mar 5, 2004)

Anyone who has one or more stations in their area who do not deliver network HD programming and wants to get that programming from satellite needs to let their elected representatives in Congress know that. An easy way to contact Congress on this subject is through:

http://www.iwantmyhdtv.com/iwanthdtv/

Congress may not listen to us, but we ought to let them know what we want.

MIKE


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

So, is there a final ruling on SHVIRA?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

It has not been enacted yet if that is what you meqan by a "ruming".


----------



## ehgreen (Nov 23, 2004)

Chris and other readers of this thread---

As forum owner, suggest you use whatever ZAP powers you have to correct a couple of the subject lines-- most particularly Mr Shvia Sunday at 6:15pm claiming _McCain Bill PASSED. _

The McCain bill "Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004" was s.2013; This summer "Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Rural Consumer Access to Digital Television Act of 2004" was introduced [S.2644]. Neither got to the Senate Floor.

The first House bill was "Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004" [H.R.4501] and was followed by "W. J. (Billy) Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004" (Passed by House as H.R.4518). I believe this passed last Wednesday or Thursday, and then went to the Senate.

For links to the text you can go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for "satellite home viewer". As I write this post, the Senate approval has not been reflected at the LOC site. Searching for the Tauzin bill H.4518 will get the cleanest text.

Finally, remember, in Opera, it's not over till the Fat Lady sings. Nothing is passed until the House considers the new combined bill, which won't happen until December. I've just notified my Congressional reps of needed additions, such as . . . .

Make sure that qualifying DN subscribers also are provided the 20 + Public Interest Channels FREE as the FCC has ordered. Charlie does NOT deliver the "DN Only" folks the 9400 channels, some of the more interesting alternative programming available.

Chris, you are free to slice and dice this posting, or heaven forbid, post it multiple places. Newbie here, but not to subject matter!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I agree that this si not the McCain bill. But no further action by the House is required.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The last version of HB4518 is what became Title IX of HB4818 that "passed". IIRC there was one more step today, the house accepting the senate's acceptance of the house bill. But the fat lady has sung and there is only one person in the US that must act to make HB4818 and it's myriad components LAW. POTUS.

It IS the last version of the McCain efforts ... An "Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to HR 4518". Read the PDF, you will find 107 pages of SHVERA with only a couple minor changes (SEC341 for a couple of specific markets and one line scratched having to do with a study). Nothing major.

JL


----------



## ehgreen (Nov 23, 2004)

justalurker said:


> The last version of HB 4518 is what became Title IX of the *Financial Bill  *  that "passed". you will find 107 pages of SHVERA with only a couple minor changes (SEC341 for a couple of specific markets and one line scratched having to do with a study). Nothing major.


Yes, I agree that "it" is largely done, but the devil is in the details. And Congress OFTEN makes technical corrections, even in the NEXT session, so I'll hold out a bit till POTUS barks.

BTW, found an interesting background document that all interested in this topic should read, dated 10/21/04 from an amazing consortium. Here is one sentence (fair use) from:
http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/pressrel/senate sat letter.doc

. . .we would urge you to review in particular H.R. 4518, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, and which is endorsed by almost all industry stakeholders - including local broadcasters, the television networks, cable operators and programmers, professional and collegiate sports organizations, the motion picture industry, and DIRECTV.

No mention of Rural communities, Video buffs, etc.

Cheers


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

The next session isa n entirely diferent congress. They could amend this bill but they would have to start from scratch. that si not impossible but it is unlikely.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ehgreen said:


> Congress OFTEN makes technical corrections, even in the NEXT session, so I'll hold out a bit till POTUS barks.


The bill will become law before the next session, and any "technical corrections" will have to be handled in a new bill. Note that the effort to get this bill passed started in January of 2004, was delt with in June, and sat on schedule since October until it was rolled in to the omnibus "pass it or lose it" bill last week.

HR4818 puts the definition on "and for other purposes".

If there are "techincal corrections" theywill require the full process to be followed (including POTUS) and they won't be passed overnight. Unless they left a major hole in the law that the FCC cannot interpret the new rules will take effect long before they can be changed.

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

ehgreen said:


> Yes, I agree that "it" is largely done, but the devil is in the details. And Congress OFTEN makes technical corrections, even in the NEXT session, so I'll hold out a bit till POTUS barks.
> 
> BTW, found an interesting background document that all interested in this topic should read, dated 10/21/04 from an amazing consortium. Here is one sentence (fair use) from:
> http://www.nab.org/xert/corpcomm/pressrel/senate sat letter.doc
> ...


As noted, this legislation is endorsed by industry stakeholders, not consumers. This is anti-consumer legislation written by entrenched media companies who are protecting their own interests by buying influence in Congress.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> As noted, this legislation is endorsed by industry stakeholders, not consumers. This is anti-consumer legislation written by entrenched media companies who are protecting their own interests by buying influence in Congress.


I assume you have proof of the money trail to back up this slander? (Actually, I assume you can't back it up.)

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AzDave said:


> If you are a satellite customer and like Distant Networks. go to the link provided.
> 
> If you area satellite customer and like local channels also go to the link provided
> 
> ...


Posting the same message four times is against forum rules.

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

This is definitely a mess. I do not live within a DMA, but now I am now DMA'd as Denver, because I live in CO's spot beam, by miles I am closer to Cheyenne WY and within their spot. No local network repeaters and cannot receive OTA. Surprise! You no longer qualify for distant nets. Agree to sub to Denver as your local and get CBS & NBC distant HD nets, do not, no HD nets for YOU!

Nielson's DMA maps, obviously, thrown out the window. The FCC needs to burn in H* for this rural blunder and most in Congress are still patting themselves on the back for "job well done".

If this turns out to be an act of Denver net affiliates trying sustain their advertisers, and I can invoke a choice of "locals" versus "distants", Denver nets can burn in H*. I will choose distant nets over Denver any day of the week. At least Denver nets will have the satisfaction of knowing who their market is, using their abacus. Mine, excluded. Bye bye, Rockies used car commercials.

Nets are loosing significant subs a year, and they pull this stunt, lobbying the FCC? Welcome their future, USAIR. These net nut balls are even petitioning "for" state taxes. I want even go there. What trench are they digging? Only their own.

This is so cable mentality. Local nets are a choice via DBS.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> This is definitely a mess. I do not live within a DMA, but now I am now DMA'd as Denver,[...]Surprise! You no longer qualify for distant nets.


Both DirecTV and Dish Network serve over 92 percent of the households in America with local channels. In the eyes of the NAB, the networks, and whomever else you want to line up, you are now served with local channels. Why should cable be denied the advantage of distant networks when it is just as easy to stop serving distant networks to those markets where locals *are* available?


> Nets are loosing significant subs a year, and they pull this stunt, lobbying the FCC?


The nets did not "pull this stunt", and it wasn't from lobbying the FCC. The language that makes people "served" if their market is available from a DBS company is actually a law, passed by Congress and signed by the President. It appears the language for this came from the NAB, not the networks.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Both DirecTV and Dish Network serve over 92 percent of the households in America with local channels. In the eyes of the NAB, the networks, and whomever else you want to line up, you are now served with local channels. Why should cable be denied the advantage of distant networks when it is just as easy to stop serving distant networks to those markets where locals *are* available?


SHVIA determined distant qual because of OTA distance and grade of signal. Now qual is your local cable or DBS provider for a city 100+ miles away. You missed the point. I live in one state closer to another states nets, but have been moved to the farther DMA and reside within both spots. Qual by state or stupidity?



> The nets did not "pull this stunt", and it wasn't from lobbying the FCC. The language that makes people "served" if their market is available from a DBS company is actually a law, passed by Congress and signed by the President. It appears the language for this came from the NAB, not the networks.


Network affiliates complained because they where loosing local advertisers. Why did the FCC do this again? The *language* in this bill came from where, the FCC water cooler? And of course you only receive HBO E because your E of the Mississippi?? The NAB consists of who again??? Pick one, the National Bank of Australia or the National Association of *Broadcasters*.

So in your opinion, the NAB does not represent networks, I should drive 77 miles to Denver to buy a car from Rockies, because whoo who, while I am only 50 miles from Cheyenne, my local nets (Denver) now advertise, come see us? In a canyon, cannot receive either OTA. So cable decided my DMA? Your so clever.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> SHVIA determined distant qual because of OTA distance and grade of signal. Now qual is your local cable or DBS provider for a city 100+ miles away. You missed the point. I live in one state closer to another states nets, but have been moved to the farther DMA and reside within both spots. Qual by state or stupidity?


Actually, it was the predecessor of the SHVIA, the SHVA, signed in 1988, that determined distant qualification by grade of signal (not distance). I understand you live closer to one city's transmitters than the DMA in which you are assigned. So do I. And "significantly-viewed" may rectify that.


Marcus S said:


> Network affiliates complained because they where loosing local advertisers. Why did the FCC do this again? The language in this bill came from where, the FCC water cooler? And of course you only receive HBO E because your E of the Mississippi??


The FCC had nothing to do with this. A new bill was required from Congress to be signed into law by December 31, 2004, or all distant networks and superstations would go dark. Congress received input from many different sources, most of which were from the broadcast industry, including the NAB. Not the FCC.

And HBO is owned by Time Warner. They control all HBO channels, and can distribute their programming as they see fit. Not so with the networks.


Marcus S said:


> The NAB consists of who again???[...]So in your opinion, the NAB does not represent networks, I should drive 77 miles to Denver to buy a car from Rockies, because whoo who, while I am only 50 miles from Cheyenne, my local nets (Denver) now advertise, come see us? In a canyon, cannot receive either OTA. So cable decided my DMA? Your so clever.


First, I did not write this bill, so please don't take this out on me.

Second, the NAB is the National Association of Broadcasters, as you correctly observe. However, FOX, NBC, and CBS are not members of the NAB. I think ABC still might be a member. Irregardless, the major networks are not members of the NAB. Many of the affiliates of the networks are members of the NAB.

Third, Nielsen decides your DMA. Nielsen uses viewership pattern sampling to determine which areas are more inclined to watch channels from a specific area. Your county must have a viewership sample that watches Denver stations more than watches Cheyenne stations. And cable could have something to do with this. However, since Denver was the first city to have carriage on old C-band satellite, the Denver DMA is quite large (it even extends to a couple of counties in Nebraska). So satellite viewership also plays a part in determining how Nielsen draws lines for viewership boundries.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> They control all HBO channels, and can distribute their programming as they see fit. Not so with the networks.


The networks CAN distribute their programs as they see fit. They have seen fit to distribute them with a first run exclusive offer to their affiliates. For example, If NBC/Universal decided that The West Wing would better be distributed first run on Bravo or even simulcast they could do that. Their affiliates probably would not like it, and there may be some network affiliate contract language barring such behavior. But there is no law that says network programming MUST air on the network affiliate first and have market exclutivity. That's the network's choice.

JL


----------



## GW_HD (Feb 4, 2005)

I agree with Marcus S, many distants beyond the 70 mile transmission rule have now been lumped into their closest DMA because of spot and no longer qualify for DNS even though their previous qual resulted in no local net OTA. I agree that qual'd subs under the old SHVIA rules should qual for a choice of closest DMA with local HD "or" DSN including HD nets.

Unfortunately, DBS providers have anchored themselves within constraints to protect themselves from fines and are viewing this bill as conservatively as possible. The 70 mile rule does exist under the new SHVERA, but is not being interpreted properly by DBS providers.

Interesting, that most rurals would prefer a choice of E/W DSN over their closet 70+ DMA. But, farmers, ranchers, and mountain folk do live in a time shift different from Suburbia. First and mostly rural early adopters of DBS, switched from C-Band, now forced into a DMA, obviously feel betrayed by the FCC.

I do agree that if I qualified for two net time zones w/HD, could not receive OTA from the closest affiliates, I too would choose DSN w/HD over "locals". Unfortunately, there is no wording in this bill to say who does or does not qual for HD networks except for blanket O&O HD waivers, but then this bill implies, a contradiction in that the waiver system in general no longer exists.

I am puzzled why the subject of this post is labeled SHVIRA and agree that while Congress publicized that SHVERA 
brought clarity, it has succesfully introduced scare tactics which have translated into a mess. Inversely, and what this bill clarifies, is that rurals are not eligible for any HD nets.

Under SHVERA;

1) You live 70+ miles outside your DMA, you have been switched by your DBS provider to your closest DMA or have requested the closest DMA. You now qualify for either O&O E or W HD DSN.

2) You cannot receive OTA net channels and request to receive only DSN and drop your 70+ mile away "locals". No HD nets for you.

3) You where previously DSN grandfathered, sub'd to one or more DSN's and retain your HD mirrors including local net O&O.

4) You live within an O&O and qual to receive either E or W HD DSN.

5) A little known rider on this bill, if you can receive at least one local net via OTA including a net repeater that is beyond the 70+ mile rule, you are now lumped into the closest local DMA for all nets and above restrictions apply.

"There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind..."

This is not an opinion, but it cannot be ignored that cable and the nets now feel threatened in many ways.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Forgive me if this seems jumbled, but I am having a hard time deciphering the last post. All quotes attributed to GW_HD;


> Unfortunately, DBS providers have anchored themselves within constraints to protect themselves from fines and are viewing this bill as conservatively as possible. The 70 mile rule does exist under the new SHVERA, but is not being interpreted properly by DBS providers.


There was never a 70 mile rule. And I am fairly certain the DBS companies are interpreting the SHVERA correctly.


> Under SHVERA;
> 
> 1) You live 70+ miles outside your DMA, you have been switched by your DBS provider to your closest DMA or have requested the closest DMA. You now qualify for either O&O E or W HD DSN.


You cannot live 70+ miles outside your DMA. Unless you live in Alaska, every single area in the United States is assigned to a Designated Market Area (DMA). If the local channels from your DMA are available and you do not have Distant Network Service (DNS), then you can no longer receive DNS. You could live 70+ miles from the towers, but you are not 70+ miles outside your DMA.


> 2) You cannot receive OTA net channels and request to receive only DSN and drop your 70+ mile away "locals". No HD nets for you.


Not necessarily. If you have DNS service, and you do not want your local channels, you will continue to receive your DNS service. If you also have HD DNS service, you get to keep it.


> 5) A little known rider on this bill, if you can receive at least one local net via OTA including a net repeater that is beyond the 70+ mile rule, you are now lumped into the closest local DMA for all nets and above restrictions apply.


There is no 70+ mile rule. If you live in a DMA where local channels are available on DBS, and do not have Distant Network Service, you will not be able to receive Distant Network Service. This has nothing to do with OTA reception; this only has to do with reception of local channels via DBS.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Since your so in the know you need the absorb the following links;
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/see/LocalChannels_options.dsp
http://www.directv.com/see/landing/dns_shvera.html

Then to support your argument, please produce a Text, Word, or PDF document of the SHVERA "entire" bill. You want find it, because while it has been implemented, it is not yet available to the public. Why?

Because revisions are still in progress to define who can or cannot qual to receive local HD "or" DNS HD nets if a rural opts out of their new found local DMA who also cannot receive OTA reception. The only scrambled words I read are yours. So please copy/paste portions of the actual bill to support your foundation.

The true argument is if SHVERA is an addendum to SHVA / SHVIRA or if SHVERA modifies to clarify existing law. Public view, after damage, is due sometime in April.

Regardless, DBS providers are acting conservatily because they expect the worst.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> Since your so in the know you need the absorb the following links;
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/see/LocalChannels_options.dsp
> http://www.directv.com/see/landing/dns_shvera.html


DirecTV's stupidity does not make a law. (Although there should be a law against that level of stupidity.)

IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THERE IS A 70 MILE RULE SHOW US IN THE LAW.

There is a footnote on that first page that is more clear:An "unserved household" is defined as one that receives less than a Grade B signal from local TV stations. SHVIA requires that we use the Individual Location Longley-Rice ("ILLR") model to determine whether a customer resides in an unserved household.​
I believe DirecTV has mis-interpreted the law on the second page for people who had both distants and locals on the appropriate date. But there is nothing in the law that says they cannot cut off your locals or distants at their own option.



Marcus S said:


> The true argument is if SHVERA is an addendum to SHVA / SHVIRA or if SHVERA modifies to clarify existing law. Public view, after damage, is due someome in April.


SHVERA modified and extended existing laws. All past tense since SHVERA was enacted two months ago.

The FCC regulations are under discussion, but they are clearly in public view - downloadable from the FCC and being discussed on this very forum. Even you can read comment to the FCC on their interpretations. Welcome to America!

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

I believe my earlier post stated that DBS provider "are" interpreting this bill inaccurately and agree that law, interpretation, and DBS policy has now headed south.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As of 1:59am


Marcus S said:


> Since your so in the know you need the absorb the following links;
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/see/LocalChannels_options.dsp
> http://www.directv.com/see/landing/dns_shvera.html
> 
> ...


Just marking this down, in case there are further revisions.

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> I believe my earlier post stated that DBS provider "are" interpreting this bill inaccurately and agree that law, interpretation, and DBS policy has now headed south.


The law is doing fine. The official interpretation is underway in the NPRM. This is not the end of DBS.

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

This is not the end of DBS, but how they are interpreting SHVERA. So far, D* sent letters out today to allow you to choose new found locals versus DNS and cannot guaranty DNS HD if you opt out of "locals".

So far I have distant locals & DSN, and will opt out of distant locals if I can be assured I can get DSN HD.

The nets and cable have allot to loose here, and I will assure, my new found locals will loose.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> This is not the end of DBS, but how they are interpreting SHVERA. So far, D* sent letters out today to allow you to choose new found locals versus DNS and cannot guaranty DNS HD if you opt out of "locals".
> 
> So far I have distant locals & DSN, and will opt out of distant locals if I can be assured I can get DSN HD.
> 
> The nets and cable have allot to loose here, and I will assure, my new found locals loose.


If you say so. But I choose to disagree.

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> You have until April to disagree with your DBS provider. You have only have March to complain to the FCC.
> _Message deleted while I was replying._


Comment date: April 8, 2005
Reply Comment date: April 29, 2005

We have until April 8th to comment to the FCC, and until April 29th to reply to comments made to the FCC. Of course the rulemaking has to do with Significantly Viewed stations - close distants. So don't bother the FCC with your complaints about East Coast/West Coast distants.

You can disagree with your DBS provider until you are blue in the face. It is their option, and perfectly legal, not to offer you distants or locals - either or both.

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Please produce the actual bill in it's entirety. Do not make assumptions or produce snipits of what the bill was intended to accomplish. Last consumer posts must be received by Mar 11, Corporate appeals will be "considered" through April 8th.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

2:59am


Marcus S said:


> Please produce the actual bill in it's entirety. Do not make assumptions and produce snipits of what the bill was intended to accomplish.


See THIS POST for one of the many links posted to the SHVIRA forum.

3:06am


Marcus S said:


> Please produce the actual bill in it's entirety. Do not make assumptions or produce snipits of what the bill was intended to accomplish. Last consumer posts must be received by Mar 11, Corporate appeals will be "considered" through April 8th.


Prove that. What paragraph?

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Obviously you are smoking something, your late night post / link is garbled and smokes out pork barrels under the Reagan Admin? And yes, please post the SHVERA bill for us all to read.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

3:10am


Marcus S said:


> Obviously you are smoking something, your late night post is garbled and smokes out pork barrels under the Reagan Admin?


Oh, you have done better than that. Your 2:12am post was barely in English. The 3:10am one here would kill an English teacher.

Have you found proof of the 70 mile rule yet, or have you turned to insults only mode now?

There is no March 11th cutoff for consumer comments.

3:16am


Marcus S said:


> Obviously you are smoking something, your late night post / link is garbled and smokes out pork barrels under the Reagan Admin? And yes, please post the SHVERA bill for us all to read.


I just did in the last post. 

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

You are not making any sense nor have you provided proof to counter anything I have said this morning. When someone has to turn fact into their FAQ w/out substance and is now insulted, you are now gone from radar.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

3:22am


Marcus S said:


> You are not making any sense nor have you provided proof to counter anything I have said this morning and when someone has to turn fact into their FAQ w/out substance and is now insulted, you are gone from radar.


Goodnight. Hope the English teachers reading recover soon. 

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

And as usual you BS you way through your fact without providing any actual. Post FCC and Congress links. Excuse me, the topic is not English Grammar, it's Government / Congress effecting DNS. Obviously you are on the wrong forum or simply feel a need to deflect the topic due to your lack of knowledge on the subject.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> Post FCC and Congress links.


Been there, done that. Please cease the personal attacks. Thanks.

JL


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Posted an old stale link about the Reagan admin, which has nothing to do with current DNS or SHVERA. Has yet to post any link to current DNS or SHVERA fact. When summoned to produce DNS or SHVERA fact, instead, deflected the question by attacking grammar. Now requesting martyr status.

It is a "public" attack, that you have contributed the square root / zero to this topic so far.

This link however, is interesting...
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=47508&page=2

:backtotop


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> This link however, is interesting...
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=47508&page=2


DirecTV can choose to discontinue distants at any time to any customer that they want. There is no requirement that distants be offered to anyone, and it appears that DirecTV is taking that option by giving people the choices they have offered. People with both distants and locals pre-SHVERA should be able to keep both as part of the new grandfathering. But DirecTV has chosen not to offer that grandfathering.

JL


----------

