# Bill worries EchoStar



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Measure may require all channels to be on single satellite dish

By Chris Walsh, Rocky Mountain News
October 6, 2004

EchoStar Communications Corp. has a lot riding on federal satellite TV legislation that could move forward today in Congress.

But, to get what it wants, the Douglas County-based company finds itself battling the cable industry, broadcasters and fellow satellite- television provider DirecTV.

EchoStar is lobbying lawmakers on two main issues related to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act - a key piece of legislation that aims to update the nation's satellite-TV policy.

The issues, which involve the delivery of local channels and high-definition signals, could create or dissolve competitive advantages for EchoStar.

"We take this very seriously," said Steve Caulk, an EchoStar spokesman. "We're monitoring it constantly."

The overall bill is an extension of legislation that allows satellite TV companies to provide consumers with local stations like CBS and ABC. The current legislation, which expires at the end of the year, also lets satellite companies offer national feeds of, say, the NBC station in New York to consumers in other parts of the country who can't get their local NBC station.

The legislation likely will pass, or be extended, before it expires at the end of this year, industry watchers say. And many expect the House to vote on it as soon as today.

*More*


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Chris, It would be good to only need one dish aiming in one direction, but this could cause for a major cost impact on the consumer. I would like to see more HD especially for locals and/or networks. It sound like Direct TV has plans in place for local HDTV signals. I suspect that if the bill fails and D* implements their plan, there most certainly will be a migration from one service to another. BTW do you happen to know the AB number?


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

The whole root issue here is the fact that an entire technology, DBS is being managed inefficiently for the express purpose of perpetuating an out dated 55 year old broadcast technology. When you consider that the entire local broadcast schedule is primarily local news and local TV advertising, very few locally produced television beyond this, the efforts to force an entire technology to bend over backwards to accomodate LIL is just plain stupid. 

I would propose that before our DBS gets into this LIL any deeper an entirely different approach needs to be examined.
1. Keep the Local broadcasters the way they are now.
2. Keep local Cable the way it is now.
3. Restrict DBS to the following-
A. Reduce all LIL contracts to:
1. Top 50 markets only including HDTV channels
2. For all other network broadcasts in other markets, rebroadcast the Networks only. Pass a law that if cable is available that carries locals for a community, adding DBS locals is optional at the viewers choice but networks may not be subscribbed to unless locals are also subscribbed to. This may appear to favor cable but in reality it just keeps the local broadcast channel present in a home where it can be available but by choice isn't. Cable would be required to offer this package as a very low cost Locals plus the CSPAN weather and other basic required channels. 
B. In the case of DBS only available to areas where no cable maybe fringe local broadcast. the consumer could subscribe to all national feeds of the networks as they are currently available today but implementing this plan would open the single dish solution with adequate bandwidth for HDTV channels as well. 

The above rethink could effectively bring HDTV and all programming to all people who want it with adequate quality. It would not permit local viewers to boycott a service where his locals are not available. It would reduce the advertising base in rural communities with no cable and no terresteral signal coverage. Considering that I am in this business, I know that the impact of this reduction is insignificant and not worth mentioning. 

What this rethink does is reduce the massive redundant transmissions of the exact same content hundreds of times across the nation. 

If it can be shown in the numbers, and I assure you it can, that the advertising base will not lose with this change then who does lose? It's the dbs providers. Yes, I have not figured a way that the current income stream from selling redundant LIL programming can be made up once it is lost in these markets beyond 50. That is, I cannot state any specific plan to do so. What I do know is that once all this bandwidth is freed up on DBS, it will open greater possibilities for additional, not yet available programming nation wide. It is hoped that in these new and additional dbs capable programming only that revenues can continue to be built. Unfortunately, until the root core problem is resolved by doing away with redundant program transmission into same markets, there is no desire to visit these other opportunities.


I have presented this concept to many independent thinkers in the business and they all feel it is a great solution but for one flaw. That flaw is there is a mindset to want to compete on a me too basis. In other words, the industry hates to venture into new territory. If local TV is available free by VHF and UHF broadcast, Plus it is available by cable for a price, why not try to sell this same service again but for more money and lower quality compressed signal? It's the dbs' fault they have this mess. My solution is the only way to resolve it without wasting more and more resources on redundancy.

Looking at it from a different angle- What programming do I have now by the most choices?
Of course, it's the major networks on local TV. Let's count them up?

1. Terresterial- off of Dish Network, off of DirecTV, and off of Voom equipment/service
Running count= 3
2. via cable box retransmitted from cable service
Running count= 3
3. DBS retransmitted LIL feeds
Running count= 5
4. DBS national feeds ( note- this is not 100% redundant, more like 85%)
Running count= 7

So you see, I have just under 7 ways to get the exact same content 24/7. if I desire to pay the services redundantly. DBS desires to continue this unnecessary redundancy and people are supporting it, mostly because they don't understand the big picture of waste here. 

A more severe approach to this is to eliminate the 50 top markets option altogether from dbs offerings and force all who carry their locals via local cable and/or terresterial the dbs option. I believe this about face on the industry police would be too much but to restrict dbs offerings to just the top 50 markets would, I think, be a happy compromise and get the core problem resolved.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> The whole root issue here is the fact that an entire technology, DBS is being managed inefficiently for the express purpose of perpetuating an out dated 55 year old broadcast technology. When you consider that the entire local broadcast schedule is primarily local news and local TV advertising, very few locally produced television beyond this, the efforts to force an entire technology to bend over backwards to accomodate LIL is just plain stupid.


Then the concept of business must be painful. Good business practice drives revenues, revenues drive Wall Street, and Wall Street drives the economy.

The business practices of the network-affiliate model may be 55 years old, but the truth still remains that consumers do not get network programming from the network; consumers receive network programming from affiliates. Both DBS companies believe that the local-into-local legislation has helped their bottom line.

And let us not forget that one of the reasons the FCC stopped the merger between the two DBS companies is because the FCC felt that Echostar could not be trusted to be a "good steward" of the airwaves because of Echostar's position on spreading must-carry local channels over two-dish locals service.

And, no offense, Don, but your proposal is horrid. One of the DBS companies is using 10 spot-beam transponders to retransmit 106 local markets. Even paring the list down to the top 50 markets, DirecTV would not gain any bandwidth from removing the other 56 markets, based on your plan.

And before anyone flames me, realize this: I was against using DBS bandwidth for local channel retransmission. Then again, I live between two markets from where I can get both sets of local network channels easily. Not everyone has this luxury.

Of course, now I am for local-into-local, for again purely selfish reasons. I can get the Baltimore networks from DBS and TiVo them using the DirecTV DVR, which has changed my family's viewing habits enormously.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Related to the single dish for locals, one would expect that many of the locals on 105 and 121 will be moved to E-10 once it is launched and operational. Dish could leave some of the minor locals at 105 or 121 and still meet the all locals on one dish requirement via Superdish. Dish could also move the minor locals off the wings, (61.5 and 148) to the Suerdish slots 105 and 121 and meet the all locals on one dish requirement. This would put all locals on a single dish but subscribers would have to upgrade to a Superdish to get the minor locals. Some subscribers may be reluctant to do this upgrade but Dish may do this for the same reason they ended putting the minor locals on the wings initially i.e., limitations on the bandwidth of the spotbeams. Dish could also put minor locals on the Ka band spotbeams at 105 and 121 which may be more susceptible to rain fade but might meet the letter of the law.

It will be interesting about the exact wording of the legislation specifically 
"single dish for all locals" versus "single orbital location for all locals" or a requirement that the same equipment is needed for all locals.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Again, some people here are misunderstanding the law. All of the locals within a single DMA must be receivable on a single Dish, regardless of how many dishes are required for the other channels. That is all. It does not mean that all locals in all markets must be receivable on the same dish as the main programming.

IOW, two, three, four dishes are OK, as long as all of the locals in that one market can be received with one dish, which can be a separate dish from main, international, or any other programming.

It really isn't that big a deal. Dish can juggle things around on the birds. If they would have planned the LIL's correctly in the first place, none of this would be necessary.

I have always said that urban DMA's should have their locals on the main birds, as it is difficult to mount a 2nd dish, or even superdish, in an urban setting (mostly apartments). Rural/suburban areas are much better suited for a two dish/superdish solution. But, I guess that makes too much sense.


----------



## MSoper72 (Jun 18, 2004)

I've been waiting for almost 2 to 3 years for my locals and still waiting. For this nonsense, reduce to the 50 top markets is plain Dumb!  :nono2: 

I do not mind putting up a 2nd dish for a wing location of 61.5 or 148 for my locals. As long as I would be able to receive them. So, with the E-10 soon to be launched; it probably will help E* out. Plus, they have recently bought 3 more satellite locations. So, something good will come out of this mess, but to reduce to the 50 top markets. You're nuts!! :uglyhamme 

Besides, I can care less about HDTV. My current tv set works just fine. I do NOT want to go spend thousands of dollars for another tv set. Thank You very Much. :nono2:


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

garypen said:


> It really isn't that big a deal. Dish can juggle things around on the birds. If they would have planned the LIL's correctly in the first place, none of this would be necessary.


It wouldn't be fatal, but it would be expensive. Some markets would see all stations move to the main dish, but to accomodate them, other markets would see all stations move to a side dish.

In those new side dish markets, Dish will need to install a second dish for everyone who has locals (subs x install cost) and will lose subs who absolutely can't use a second dish (some apartment dwellers, etc.). So E* will have a one-time cost increase and one-time added churn. Not something for E* shareholders to look forward to.

All of this just to ensure that shopping, religious, and other low-rated channels get the exact same treatment as netword affiliates. (sigh) The real answer is to require all OTA broadcasters to include enough relevant local programming so everyone would demand all local channels. But that's something the NAB would be _against_, so it won't happen.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

The main problem with having all your locals on a second location is line of sight. If you can't get the LoS, the you are SoL............. Now, since they appear to be replacing AMC2 with AMC15(which has NO Ku Band spot beams), I would say it is likely that they will move all the locals off of the 105 to make way for the HD content, as originally planned. With E10's new spot beams, we could get a lot of the locals off the wings, but then the people who have been wating for locals will get screwed...........Having more than 1 dish will probably end up being the norm in the future, which should make all the HOAs quite happry//// :hurah: :hurah:


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Dish may be fighting for the exacting wording in the bill. Obviously Dish would prefer to be allowed to continue like they have been but they certainly would rather have bill wording that allows for a "single dish for all locals" over "single orbital location for all locals" or a requirement that the same equipment is needed for all locals.

When AMC-15 replaces AMC-2, Dish will have at least 8 empty TPs for HD or other programming. These 8 TPs could be used for up to 32 channels of HD. They will not have to move locals from the 105 slot and probably will not until E-10 is launched and operational. E-10 will probably not be operational till late in 2005 at the earliest unless something drastically changes. AMC-16 at 85 W that is scheduled to be launched in mid December 2004 is another possibility for additional locals or HD.

As a side note, AMC-15 at 105, E-9 at 121, and AMC-16 at 85 have/will have Ka-band spotbeams while their Ku band TPs are CONUS.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

carload said:


> It wouldn't be fatal, but it would be expensive. Some markets would see all stations move to the main dish, but to accomodate them, other markets would see all stations move to a side dish.


That's the juggling part of my observation.



carload said:


> In those new side dish markets, Dish will need to install a second dish for everyone who has locals (subs x install cost) and will lose subs who absolutely can't use a second dish (some apartment dwellers, etc.). So E* will have a one-time cost increase and one-time added churn. Not something for E* shareholders to look forward to.


This can be reduced by:
A. Putting urban locals on the main birds, as the majority of apartment dwellers are in urban areas. (as per my original suggestion.)
B. Collect unused LNB's, switches, and even dishes from those who now use only one dish. (OTOH, the labor involved may outweigh the savings.)

They really need to plan this strategye correctly, and with a view to the long term. I know it'll be a first for them. But, there's no time like the present to start.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

rocatman said:


> When AMC-15 replaces AMC-2, Dish will have at least 8 empty TPs for HD or other programming. These 8 TPs could be used for up to 32 channels of HD. They will not have to move locals from the 105 slot and probably will not until E-10 is launched and operational.


When E* was supposed to launch the SD/HD back last december, they were claiming to have almost 50 HD channels in the works. I'm sure the main reason they went ahead and put the locals on the 105 was to get some use out of the sat since they were already paying for it, and on the hope that a lot of those customers will be ready to go HD. Having all that inventory of dishes being stored would be expensive to say the least.



rocatman said:


> As a side note, AMC-15 at 105, E-9 at 121, and AMC-16 at 85 have/will have Ka-band spotbeams while their Ku band TPs are CONUS.


I seriously doubt that thos Ka spots will be used for video.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

larrystotler said:


> When E* was supposed to launch the SD/HD back last december, they were claiming to have almost 50 HD channels in the works. I'm sure the main reason they went ahead and put the locals on the 105 was to get some use out of the sat since they were already paying for it, and on the hope that a lot of those customers will be ready to go HD. Having all that inventory of dishes being stored would be expensive to say the least.
> 
> I seriously doubt that thos Ka spots will be used for video.


Actually if Dish were to move all the locals off of AMC-15, they would have room for up to 96 HD channels. AMC-16 at 85 W will have the same capacity.

I agree on the Ka band spotbeams but realize that the DirecTV Spaceway satellites that they announced were to be used to provide up to 500 local HD channels, are Ka band spotbeam satellites. I know the uplink and switching capabilities of the Spaceway satellites is very advanced but it is still Ka-band.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

_"The business practices of the network-affiliate model may be 55 years old, but the truth still remains that consumers do not get network programming from the network; consumers receive network programming from affiliates. Both DBS companies believe that the local-into-local legislation has helped their bottom line."_

Of course it has, for the immediate time. It is really a short term gain, long term pain. No one can deny the logic I have pointed out. That it is silly to "need" all these different ways to receive the same programming. The programming that is sourced from the networks. 
And I did advise that the 50 top markets is a kind of transition or a way to lessen the blow as we revert to a much more efficient use of the airwaves. To the extreme, I would like to see the DBS companies drop all markets from the LIL business. It really is quite unnecessary from a technical angle.

Going back a few years, I had a slightly different take on this because I really thought that the system would be put to a better use and that was to have the viewer option of paying for "FREE" TV to get channels in other markets. Like me subscribing to stations in my parent's home town. I could see local news and some local programming from that part of the country. Likewise, if one is planning to move to a different city, begin to learn about the city by subscribing to those local stations via DBS. But, that option, the ONLY true advantage to having Locals available nationwide was quickly quashed. And because of the bandwidth squeeze, it became impossible not only from a legal angle but also a technical one. So that leaves us with the only advantage for having LIL and that is better bottom line for the companies themselves.

And, just for the record, meanwhile back at the ranch... I don't pay any DBS or cable company for my locals. I have an antenna for them. BGut I realize not everyone can get adequate quality.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2004)

The bill passed the House on voice vote without language regarding digital white areas.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

EchoStar Statement on House of Representatives' Satellite TV Bill


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

garypen said:


> B. Collect unused LNB's, switches, and even dishes from those who now use only one dish. (OTOH, the labor involved may outweigh the savings.)


Not to mention subscriber resistance. They're going to take away my Classic Arts Showcase dish just because my shopping channel moved to one of the main birds? Not while I'm home, they won't! 

Anyway, I figure there aren't too many second-dish setups with a wholesale value that would match a half-hour or more of an (un-)installer's time. Factor in the CSR load ("What happened to the Classic Arts Channel?"), and I really doubt Dish would want to touch any second dishes.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> Measure may require all channels to be on single satellite dish
> 
> By Chris Walsh, Rocky Mountain News
> October 6, 2004
> ...


Echostar is fighting the good fight on the hill, but their Washington Team is weak and in-effective compared to organizations like Direct which have a far more mature infrastructure and understanding of what it takes to get things done in DC.

The bad is the weak-kneed representatives who cave everytime the local broadcasters snap their fingers. It's easy pickin's for the local stations.... support our legislative agenda or no more freebie interviews on the 6 O'clock news.

The ugy is Eddie Fritz and the NAB along with Powell from the FCC. No two bigger boobs exist in Washington. The last thing they care about is folks like us.

There is hope that at least some of the Senate version's will make it through conference committee. The Senate is for grown-ups and with McCain at the helm of this deal, we might end up with a better deal that what we're seeing now.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

carload said:


> Factor in the CSR load ("What happened to the Classic Arts Channel?"), and I really doubt Dish would want to touch any second dishes.


You're probably right.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

To anyone that cares to read the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.4518:

See ya
Tony


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

visitor1 said:


> The bill passed the House on voice vote without language regarding digital white areas.
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com


Will the Senate do the same?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> To anyone that cares to read the bill itself:
> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.4518:


How DARE you bring facts into this wonderful debate!!!!! 

JL
(Thanks Tony)


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

LOL, Lurker.

BTW boylehome, the senate counterpart to the House bill is linked on the page listed in my previous post.

See ya
Tony


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> And before anyone flames me, realize this: I was against using DBS bandwidth for local channel retransmission. Then again, I live between two markets from where I can get both sets of local network channels easily. Not everyone has this luxury.


I have to agree except for folks living in the deep woods that can not receive the locals. I think that the LIL is a good thing for those in the sticks.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

rocatman said:


> Actually if Dish were to move all the locals off of AMC-15, they would have room for up to 96 HD channels. AMC-16 at 85 W will have the same capacity.


The number of channels will depend upon the compression they use, which is a touchy subject around here to say the least....



rocatman said:


> I agree on the Ka band spotbeams but realize that the DirecTV Spaceway satellites that they announced were to be used to provide up to 500 local HD channels, are Ka band spotbeam satellites. I know the uplink and switching capabilities of the Spaceway satellites is very advanced but it is still Ka-band.


True, but considering that they are only 12 such spots, they may not even be for E*'s use, since the Sat is owned by AMC, and they may already have another use for it.
I posted before how a SD could be modified for the 105/109 setup, but that would probably not work too well for the 110, so it is suprising that they went after the 109. They seems to be racking up a lot of locations, but they haven't announced a whole lot of plans for them...

DBS 61.5/110/119/148/157
FSS 83/85/105/109/121

Did I miss any?


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

boylehome said:


> I have to agree except for folks living in the deep woods that can not receive the locals. I think that the LIL is a good thing for those in the sticks.


No, actually, it's NOT. Those of us "in the sticks", "deep woods", or in my case "high country", really couldn't care less about what happens in those damn cities that we left behind, or never were in at all in the first place.

Think about it - local weather for me bears NO relation to ANY of the DMAs ANYWHERE. And that's not just me, that's 95% of the Colorado land area. Ditto for, what, another dozen or two states?

Local sports from some high school 50 mile away? Who cares? We never see OUR schools on their broadcasts. And of course, local news - HA. The only local news event I've ever seen was a triple murder - and then it was only because it was committed by a couple of lousy stinking @$%$##% from the city!

Finally, local advertising? Right - I'm gonna drive down there to buy a car and pay the extra city taxes and then use my local dealer for warranty service? Get real.

The fact is, for us, it's hardly better than the old C-Band days. No moving parts, quicker channel changing, but that's about it other than we've gained cheaper equipment due to the volume effect.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

The biggest problem with the networks is that their programming generally sucks, and it duplicated in a lot of ways on the other channels. I have been seriously considering dropping the locals because we almost never watch anything on them. Not to mention it would save me $5 a month. Those poor suckers with the DHAs don't have a choice tho.....


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

So after reading the bill, am I correct in stating that us grandfathered distant subs can continue to get our distants if we respond to Dish's letter in 60 days and turn down our locals?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is an odd read, but then it's really late at night too! 

It looks like the "significantly viewed" to help one particular area is still there, and the statutory license is extended for distants and superstations. BUT ...

1) You can *keep* distants if you qualify and HAD them on July 1st, 2004. E* must submit your name on the subscriber list (as with SHIVA).
2) You can *keep* distants if your DMA has locals on January 1st, 2005 and E* submits your name on the subscribers list within 60 days.
3) You can *get* distants until your DMA gets LILs, and when you choose LILs you lose distants. (If your market has LILs on January 1st 2005, see #2.)
4) You CANNOT *get* distants if you don't subscibe to them on the date of enactment AND live in a market with a local of the same affiliate.

Waivers seem to still be available.

JL


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

That seems to be a reasonable phase in period to remove distant nets rather than abruptly cutting them off. If you already have them, you wont lose them (at least for another 5 years.) 

I don't like the idea of taking away options, but I keep reminding myself that this law removes rights owned by the TV stations in the first place. Without this law, it would not be legal to sell NBC to anyone unless NBC itself said okay. And they haven't yet!

See ya
Tony


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


SimpleSimon said:


> No, actually, it's NOT. Those of us "in the sticks", "deep woods", or in my case "high country", really couldn't care less about what happens in those damn cities that we left behind, or never were in at all in the first place.
> 
> Think about it - local weather for me bears NO relation to ANY of the DMAs ANYWHERE. And that's not just me, that's 95% of the Colorado land area. Ditto for, what, another dozen or two states?
> 
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm afraid in this case your steadfast in your feelings, or your locals are like mine.  Personally I would prefer just to have network over affiliate stations.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

boylehome said:


> Will the Senate do the same?


Of course they will because that's what the NAB wants and they're making a heck of a lot more noise than us satellite customers. There have been a few of us both here and on the Satellite Guys list really pushing for people to hound congress about this - apparently not enough of you did.

I don't know what it takes to make some people get it. This - is - an - election - year. Congress - wants - votes. In - an - election - year - politicians - are - a - little - more - likely - to - listen - to - voters. Not a lot but some.

It's almost over and we're loosing. The only slim (and I mean slim) chance is for all satellite customers to deluge the Senate with calls, letters & emails (the personal type - not the generic ones) voiceing support for a "digital white area" clause in the final bill (similar to what the McCain - Ensign version had).

ALthough Dish is carrying on over the 2 dish deal, they'd accept that in a heartbeat if they could get the digital white area clause.

WaltinVt


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

MSoper72 said:


> I've been waiting for almost 2 to 3 years for my locals and still waiting. For this nonsense, reduce to the 50 top markets is plain Dumb!  :nono2:
> 
> I do not mind putting up a 2nd dish for a wing location of 61.5 or 148 for my locals. As long as I would be able to receive them. So, with the E-10 soon to be launched; it probably will help E* out. Plus, they have recently bought 3 more satellite locations. So, something good will come out of this mess, but to reduce to the 50 top markets. You're nuts!! :uglyhamme
> 
> Besides, I can care less about HDTV. My current tv set works just fine. I do NOT want to go spend thousands of dollars for another tv set. Thank You very Much. :nono2:


AMEN BROTHER! I can live without HDTV! HDTV is a scam!


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

waltinvt said:


> Of course they will because that's what the NAB wants and they're making a heck of a lot more noise than us satellite customers. There have been a few of us both here and on the Satellite Guys list really pushing for people to hound congress about this - apparently not enough of you did.
> 
> I don't know what it takes to make some people get it. This - is - an - election - year. Congress - wants - votes. In - an - election - year - politicians - are - a - little - more - likely - to - listen - to - voters. Not a lot but some.
> 
> ...


I've contacted my congress persons. It would be nice if everyone did the same. I would say that most people that contact them are busy on these threads. There must be at least 23 million E* and D* customers combined. That right there is a pretty good number to get things moving. I was very disappointed with Congressman WH. That one let us down quite some time ago. That was when the networks got turned off because of locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

justalurker said:


> It is an odd read, but then it's really late at night too!


The copy of the bill I read was the wrong one!

HR 4518 the "W. J. (Billy) Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004" 
(OK, it's also "Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004".)
* SHVIA license extended to Dec 2009.
* Specific area giveaways as noted before.
* SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED CHANNELS - Satellite can carry stations outside their DMA that would be available under cable's rules in each community.

There are two points which will be 17USC119 paragraph (4)(A) that seem to contradict other provisions:
** CHOOSE LOCALS, LOSE DISTANTS - When your locals become available you have 60 days to make the choice. Providers must provide a list of all eligible distants subscribers within 60 days of enactment or the subscribers lose distants.
** NO NEW DISTANTS - If you didn't have distants on October 1st, 2004, you can't get them.

However, paragraph (4)(B) specifies the following:
* AREAS WITH LOCALS ON JANUARY 1st, 2005:
** Providers have until March 1st to provide a list of all distant subscribers.
* AREAS WITHOUT LOCALS ON JANUARY 1st, 2005:
** Subscribers MUST subscribe to distants before their locals are available.
** Providers have 60 days after locals to provide a list of distant subscribers.

* Nobody can get distants after their locals are available.
* Unserved areas can still get distants. [119(4)(D)]

--- I'll skip the royalties part ---

* LOW POWER STATION - Authorized only in their own market within 35 miles of the broadcast site (except: 20 miles in the top 50 markets)
* No royalties for LPs within their 20-35 mile range. (But royalties outside?)

* SUPERSTATIONS - Opened up to commercial establishments.

* STUDY: Due June 30th, 2008 on royalty payments and penetration of locals.

* SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED CHANNELS - Limited to subscribers taking LIL service. Digital stations permitted on equal terms. No limitation on "significatly viewed" if there is no affiliate in that market.
* A PUBLIC list must be made available of these stations within 60 days.
* Significantly Viewed are not required to be carried nor required to allow carriage.

* SINGLE DISH - "Each satellite carrier that retransmits the analog signals of local television broadcast stations in a local market shall retransmit such analog signals in such market by means of a single reception antenna and associated equipment." Digitals may be on a separate dish, but must also be grouped together.
(Technically this would allow some locals on 119, some on 110, and some on 105 or 121 in the same market if E* wanted to push their luck again.)
* Providers have ONE YEAR from enactment to fix any problems.

The confusing "CHOOSE LOCALS/LOSE DISTANTS" language is repeated in the new 47USC339(a)(2). The new 47USC228(h) backs up that language.

* UNSERVED BY DIGITAL - A study is due by Dec 31, 2005.

I probably missed something or messed it up, but that's my re-read of the CORRECT bill as passed by the house.

JL


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Here are the numbers that Dish faces related to the single dish for locals legislation. Hopefully my math is correct but let me know if it is not. There are 36 markets with locals on 110 and/or 119 and 61.5 and 148. Of these 36 markets, 20 of them are in the top 25 of U.S. T.V. markets. There are 20 markets on 61.5 with 64 channels and 16 markets on 148 with 43 channels for a total of 107 channels. Note that I am not counting any markets that have all their locals on either 61.5 or 148. These 107 channels would require 9 TPs or spotbeams assuming 12 channels per TP/spotbeam. IIRC E-10 will have 45 spotbeams. 

The question is whether Dish will be able to shuffle channels on spotbeams and get most if not all of these markets in question completely on a 110 or 119 spotbeam (except for distant networks which stay on CONUS TPs). Will Dish have to modify the spotbeam design of E-10 to accomplish this and if they do, will they have enough time based on the time enactment restrictions of the single dish for locals legislation. Another option would be to move some of these locals from 61.5/148 to 105/121. This would require a Superdish replacement that would be costly for Dish so it would probably be limited to the smaller of these 36 markets. It would be interesting to know whether customers would rather have a second wing satellite dish or a Superdish or neither because the minor locals are not worth the hassle. I could see Dish dramatically slowing or stopping completely the addition of more locals until the smoke clears on this legislation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rocatman said:


> IIRC E-10 will have 45 spotbeams.


I won't dispute the other numbers as my list isn't up to date. It is true that E10 will have 45 spotbeams, but the exact configuration is unknown. There is also the possibility that it can be worked along side of E8, with E8 providing some spots and E10 providing others.

The biggest issue on both of the current spotbeam birds is overlaps of the spots. If the spots overlap it eliminates the ability to use additional frequencies in existing footprints. But if more transponders are opened up to spotbeam use (perhaps TP12 and TP14) each spot can have additional frequencies ... enough to bring in the wings.

At this point there are two major impacts on the capacity of E8, the existing spotbeam satellite at 110. The first is the number of transponders actually wired to each spotbeam downlink (and that is an unknown, at least publicly). If each of the 15 beam footprints had six transponders they would want to keep some as spares, but may be able to use four. If there are eight transponders on each footprint w/spares having four active is easy. I would find it hard to believe that the spot transponders are not frequency agile and cannot actually operate on any even transponder as E* directs. It would take some planning, but I believe E8+E10 would be a powerhouse pair.

Then again, E10 could be so well designed that it can cover all existing spots and give the needed capacity increase. Look at the spot footprints that actually need additional capacity for one dish locals. Would putting the current contents of the "shouldn't be CONUS" locals on spotbeams open up enough capacity that a series of spots on TP12 and TP14 would clear the problem?

BTW: The second major impact on the capacity of E8 is the receive antennas. It can only receive from two descrete locations (Colorado and Arizona). Since E* is only permitted to uplink on transponders they own (29 of 32) they are limited to 58 uplinks between all birds at 110. IIRC 9 of the transponders are on E6 which can't tell the difference between Colorado and Arizona. That brings the total number of uplinks down to 49. (9 to E6 and 2*20=40 to E8.) 15 CONUS transponders on E8 from 15 of those uplinks and 25 spotbeams from the other 25 uplinks. The only way to increase the number of uplinks is to shut down E6 or replace E8 with a satellite with more than two receive beams. E10 is designed with four uplink stations in mind (grand total 116 uplink beams!).

As long as the Colorado receive on E8 rejects the uplinks from Washington:
1) E8 can stay in business with feeds from Colorado and Arizona
2) E10 can be fed on the nine transponders recovered from E6 from up to four sites (initally 3, so count 27 uplinks there)
3) E10 can also be fed on 20 other uplinks from Washington (total 47 without an east coast uplink).
That would be enough to feed the 45 "spotbeams" on E10 ... although I doubt if they would be all fed until the east coast center is built. That center could uplink yet another 29 uplinks to E10, which is more than enough!



rocatman said:


> The question is whether Dish will be able to shuffle channels on spotbeams and get most if not all of these markets in question completely on a 110 or 119 spotbeam (except for distant networks which stay on CONUS TPs).


E* has known for some time that the wing dish locals would have to go. They have done the screaming now, but if they didn't CONSIDER the task of having capacity to bring locals off wings they are fools.

JL


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

justalurker said:


> The biggest issue on both of the current spotbeam birds is overlaps of the spots. If the spots overlap it eliminates the ability to use additional frequencies in existing footprints. But if more transponders are opened up to spotbeam use (perhaps TP12 and TP14) each spot can have additional frequencies ... enough to bring in the wings.
> 
> At this point there are two major impacts on the capacity of E8, the existing spotbeam satellite at 110. The first is the number of transponders actually wired to each spotbeam downlink (and that is an unknown, at least publicly). If each of the 15 beam footprints had six transponders they would want to keep some as spares, but may be able to use four. If there are eight transponders on each footprint w/spares having four active is easy. I would find it hard to believe that the spot transponders are not frequency agile and cannot actually operate on any even transponder as E* directs. It would take some planning, but I believe E8+E10 would be a powerhouse pair.
> 
> Then again, E10 could be so well designed that it can cover all existing spots and give the needed capacity increase. Look at the spot footprints that actually need additional capacity for one dish locals. Would putting the current contents of the "shouldn't be CONUS" locals on spotbeams open up enough capacity that a series of spots on TP12 and TP14 would clear the problem? JL


You asked about "shouldn't be CONUS" locals at 110 W. Here is the list:

Springfield, MO (7) on TP 20
Fort Smith, AR (1) on TP 5
Lexington, KY (4) on TP 12
Jackson, MS (6) on TP 14
Roanoke, VA (5) on TP 5
Knoxville, TN (6) on TP 12
Little Rock, AR (7) on TP 5

This totals 36 channels or a total of 3 TPs at 12 channels/TP. If Dish could free up 2 more TPs at 110, they could fully use all the spotbeams on E-8 and E-10 from a TP capacity standpoint assuming that E-10 needs 5 TPs for 45 spotbeams. If E-10 needs 9 TPs for the 45 spotbeams, then they will need the 5 from E-8, these 3 TPs from the "shouldn't be CONUS" locals and one more perhaps TP 19, the HD TP that has been empty since the Olympics ended. So will E-10 need 5 TPs for its 45 spotbeams or 9 TPs? My guess is only 5 TPs otherwise its not really a big advancement over E-8.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

I would suspect that E10 will use some of its own transponders (probably 3-5 more) plus be able to use some of the TPs in use by E8 to fill in gaps in E8 coverage. 45 spots is a lot of spots to feed, 9x reuse is asking a lot. I suspect that they will use 5 TPs exclusively on E10, probably get 6x reuse or 30spots, plus some of E8s probably 5 or so spots. The other 10 could be either backup for E8, or perhaps some spots on E8 will be shut down and used on E10 for better coverage/reuse (i.e. E10 could have larger antennas yielding smaller spots allowing better reuse for the same frequencies).

It will be interesting to see if they can use all 45 spots plus all 25 on E8. I would suspect that they will also eliminate Chicago, Atlanta, and Denver distants. With the new distants rules of if you have locals you cannot get distants, a lot of people will lose distants and having more than 2 cities is going to not really serve many people. This plus the existing LIL should free up about 5 TPs.


----------



## RBBrittain (Oct 16, 2004)

rocatman said:


> You asked about "shouldn't be CONUS" locals at 110 W. Here is the list:
> 
> Springfield, MO (7) on TP 20
> Fort Smith, AR (1) on TP 5
> ...


There are a few problems with your math regarding the two Arkansas markets:

(1) The one Fort Smith channel on TP 5 is the PBS affiliate (AETN), which is the same feed as Little Rock. So at a minimum you could only free up 35.

(2) Besides, the AETN feed is available statewide to all Arkansas E* customers; it's added at no charge to LIL packages in the Arkansas portion of the Memphis, Shreveport, Springfield, and Monroe, LA-El Dorado, AR DMAs (in addition to Little Rock and Fort Smith), and is offered for $1 to all other Arkansas customers, including the two non-LIL DMAs (Jonesboro, AR and Greenville-Greenwood, MS). So unless they can cover the ENTIRE state of Arkansas with a single spotbeam (or they plan on moving all LIL customers in Memphis, Shreveport, Springfield, AND Little Rock to SuperDish), AETN stays on 110, and you're down to 34.

(3) And if AETN stays on 110, then because of how the one-dish law is written, the other 6 Little Rock channels will probably stay on 110--AND the two channels on 148 will move there too. Besides, if they extend LIL to Jonesboro (which has only an ABC affiliate plus two satellites of Little Rock stations--AETN and the religious station presently on 148), the beam that covers Little Rock would have to cover Jonesboro as well, for both the two satellite stations and the Little Rock affiliates of the other major networks (which fall under the "significantly viewed" rule). Jonesboro being one of the poster children for "significantly viewed", I expect it will move near the top of the LIL list once SHVIA renewal passes; at that point it will only need ABC (plus the Little Rock religious station moved to 110) to "go live". So if you deduct the other 6 Little Rock stations and 3 more (the two Little Rock wingbirds plus Jonesboro ABC), you only have 25 left.

Bottom line: I seriously doubt E* will move ANY Little Rock station off 110. I suspect Roanoke is in serious trouble, however, as it shares Little Rock's TP; its channels may all go to 61.5 to make room for the Little Rock wingbirds and Jonesboro ABC.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

RBBrittain said:


> There are a few problems with your math regarding the two Arkansas markets:
> 
> (1) The one Fort Smith channel on TP 5 is the PBS affiliate (AETN), which is the same feed as Little Rock. So at a minimum you could only free up 35.
> 
> ...


Your point made in (1) above is valid but I guess I didn't make myself clear regarding the locals on the CONUS TPs on 110. I would expect all of these locals to stay at 110 when E-10 goes operational. They will just be moved to spotbeams at 110. In regards to spotbeam size, check out this website address for current spotbeams at 110:

http://ekb.dbstalk.com/pictures/echo8.gif

Now it is expected that the spotbeams on E-10 will be slightly smaller but still large enough to cover the DMAs you mentioned. By the way I believe the significant view rule will allow Dish to provide those channels. Dish will not be forced to provide those channels from outside a specific DMA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rocatman said:


> Now it is expected that the spotbeams on E-10 will be slightly smaller but still large enough to cover the DMAs you mentioned. By the way I believe the significant view rule will allow Dish to provide those channels. Dish will not be forced to provide those channels from outside a specific DMA.


What we know about E7 and E8 came from information released when E* and D* were talking merger. The maps are not entirely accurate (if they were there would be at least one DMA not covered by their spot).

I have the ITU filings on E7 and E8, but have not corrolated them with the maps. If E* makes the same quality of filing for E10 we may be able to draw the next generation map, even if one is never released. (BTW: D*'s ITU filings show their spot beams as if they covered the entire country. They don't get specific.)

The proposed "significantly viewed station" rule is permissive, allowing D* and E* to supply stations outside of their native DMA into communities that would be able to get those stations under the rules for cable. Although D* and E* are not REQUIRED to offer significantly viewed stations, it would not be a good idea from a marketing standpoint to offer less locals than cable. (I live in a market where three of my eight locals are "not required" - two LPs and a DT.2 - but to meet cable, they are there.) The sat providers have pushed for this rule, they *will* exploit the permission.

JL


----------

