# what does the passing of Stela means for distant networks..



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

so now congress has passed Stela.. what does that mean for my distant networks? 

I am looking for the difinitive answer.. can we keep them? and can we keep them and have our locals as well ?


----------



## blc (Sep 30, 2007)

"SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES- A subscriber of a satellite carrier who was lawfully receiving the distant signal of a network station on the day before the date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 may receive both such distant signal and the local signal of a network station affiliated with the same network until such subscriber chooses to no longer receive such distant signal from such carrier, whether or not such subscriber elects to subscribe to such local signal."


----------



## blc (Sep 30, 2007)

And here's one more provision in STELA stating you can keep them.

"RULES FOR LAWFUL SUBSCRIBERS AS OF DATE OF ENACTMENT OF 2010 ACT- In the case of a subscriber of a satellite carrier who, on the day before the date of the enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, was lawfully receiving the secondary transmission of the primary transmission of a network station under the statutory license under paragraph (2) (in this subparagraph referred to as the `distant signal'), other than subscribers to whom subparagraph (A) applies, the statutory license under paragraph (2) shall apply to secondary transmissions by that satellite carrier to that subscriber of the distant signal of a station affiliated with the same television network, and the subscriber's household shall continue to be considered to be an unserved household with respect to such network, until such time as the subscriber elects to terminate such secondary transmissions, whether or not the subscriber elects to subscribe to receive the secondary transmission of the primary transmission of a local network station affiliated with the same network pursuant to the statutory license under section 122."


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

What I'm wondering is whether DISH will keep the San Francisco SD feeds or switch back to LA. It's a hard choice for me because I like both. Hopefully they'll give us the option of choosing from a half-dozen cities like they did before the injunction.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Jon Ellis said:


> What I'm wondering is whether DISH will keep the San Francisco SD feeds or switch back to LA. It's a hard choice for me because I like both. Hopefully they'll give us the option of choosing from a half-dozen cities like they did before the injunction.


Not likely.

DISH will only be able to use DNS to fill out short markets that are missing one or more nets. They will almost certainly provide those missing nets by adding an out of market station on the same spot beam. There's no reason to think they would waste CONUS space just to offer short market folks a choice of where they get their missing nets.

Also, DISH cannot grandfather AAD customers, so if/when DISH and NPS decide to terminate their transponder lease agreement(s), AAD customers will lose service.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

First, Dish has to comply with some new carriage requirements. Then, Dish can seek to have the injunction lifted. However, even when the injunction is lifted, we cannot be sure what will happen. Dish and AAD may have contemplated the injunction being lifted at some time. Their contract will govern what happens, if this event was contemplated in the contract. Thus, AAD may continue service indefinitely, or their may be some changes at some point. I have noticed that on the Satelliteguys site, many people are announcing the termination of AAD service, seemingly without any actual knowledge. 

Even if Dish does resume distant network service, it is uncertain how they may do it. They may choose to spill spot beams from neighboring markets. However, this approach may not work as the spotbeams may not cover all the necessary areas. I believe that it is just as likely that Dish will simply keep the same service that AAD is offering. That will avoid interruption of service to their customers, and it may be more efficient to continue with those stations on CONUS.

Although I believe that Dish cannot grandfather AAD customers, since Dish and AAD are separate carriers, I do not believe that the termination of the contract between Dish and AAD means that AAD customers will lose service. Grandfathering refers to continuing to receive a distant station when a local station becomes available. Those persons who have waivers with AAD will probably lose service if AAD and Dish terminate the contract, and there is a local station available. However, many AAD customers are in short markets where a network station is missing. These people do not need waivers to receive a distant network station from that missing network. Thus, their eligibility for a distant station will continue, whether AAD is providing service or Dish is providing service.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I have noticed that on the Satelliteguys site, many people are announcing the termination of AAD service, seemingly without any actual knowledge.


Yeah, I waded through all that yesterday. There's a lot of useful information over there, particularly regarding channel lists, spot transponders, and so on, but there's also a lot of noise. I'm sometimes tempted to correct the misinformation I see there, but then I remember that I refuse to post there because of their ad policy, and that saves me a lot of time.

As for AAD, I really can't see why Dish would want to discontinue its contract with them and take over providing that service directly. AAD will always be able to provide DNS to customers that Dish cannot, not only because of grandfathering, but also because AAD doesn't provide LIL service. It seems like the smart move would be for AAD to continue as Dish's DNS provider, at least on the Western Arc, for as long as it is profitable for both companies.



> Even if Dish does resume distant network service, it is uncertain how they may do it. They may choose to spill spot beams from neighboring markets. However, this approach may not work as the spotbeams may not cover all the necessary areas.


They might do ConUS DNS on the Eastern Arc, because they still have ConUS locals there, but on the Western Arc, I don't think they will need to. It's probably not a coincidence that AAD is providing service only on the Western Arc.



> Although I believe that Dish cannot grandfather AAD customers, since Dish and AAD are separate carriers, I do not believe that the termination of the contract between Dish and AAD means that AAD customers will lose service. Grandfathering refers to continuing to receive a distant station when a local station becomes available. Those persons who have waivers with AAD will probably lose service if AAD and Dish terminate the contract, and there is a local station available. However, many AAD customers are in short markets where a network station is missing. These people do not need waivers to receive a distant network station from that missing network. Thus, their eligibility for a distant station will continue, whether AAD is providing service or Dish is providing service.


See above. Dish will provide DNS to short markets as part of the local package, and on the Western Arc, where AAD operates, Dish will probably do that by spot beam. I do not think that AAD customers will be able to get the same channels from the same satellites from Dish, if AAD does indeed terminate its service.

But we'll see.

Btw, under STELA, multicast streams can qualify as local network service beginning in October 2010, or in some cases, January 2011. This suggests that folks who want a distant HD net because their local station provides that net via SD subchannel would be well advised to get that distant HD net before October.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

Here's an odd question for anyone who can answer...could DISH keep its contract with AAD _and _resume offering DNS on its own? And could people theoretically receive up to four DNS affiliates of each network if they are receiving them from two different providers?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jon Ellis said:


> Here's an odd question for anyone who can answer...could DISH keep its contract with AAD _and _resume offering DNS on its own? And could people theoretically receive up to four DNS affiliates of each network if they are receiving them from two different providers?


Theoretically, yes. There is nothing stopping AAD from continuing operations after DISH resumes selling distants. It would be just like a customer having DirecTV distants and AAD.

I wonder if AAD would survive with direct competition on the same equipment that DISH uses. It wouldn't be hard to put AAD out of business.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Here is another odd question that people might enjoy discussing. I am quoting from the final language of STELA:

(iii) TIME-SHIFTING PROHIBITED- In a case in which the satellite carrier makes available to an eligible subscriber under this subparagraph the signal of a local network station pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the distant signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that subscriber if, in the case of any local market in the 48 contiguous States of the United States, the distant signal is the secondary transmission of a station whose prime time network programming is generally broadcast simultaneously with, or later than, the prime time network programming of the affiliate of the same network in the local market.’;


The time-shifting prohibition appears to be only prohibiting the earlier station when a distant network is provided into a market that already has a local station affiliated with the same network. As worded, it would not include a network station provided to a short market (a market that lacked that same network as a local).

When would a distant network station be provided to a viewer in a market where there already is a local of the same network? I can only think of two situations--either the viewer is a grandfathered viewer, or the viewer has a waiver.

I would be interested to hear anyone else's opinion. I know that AAD thinks that they cannot provide an earlier HD network (i.e. Chicago HD to California), but I am not aware that this section has ever been litigated. I feel that, after a careful reading, a judge will agree that an earlier distant can be provided to a market that lacks that same network affiliate.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

runner861 said:


> Here is another odd question that people might enjoy discussing. I am quoting from the final language of STELA:
> 
> (iii) TIME-SHIFTING PROHIBITED- In a case in which the satellite carrier makes available to an eligible subscriber under this subparagraph the signal of a local network station pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the distant signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that subscriber if, in the case of any local market in the 48 contiguous States of the United States, the distant signal is the secondary transmission of a station whose prime time network programming is generally broadcast simultaneously with, or later than, the prime time network programming of the affiliate of the same network in the local market.';
> 
> ...


Its kind of a crock. I feel for people on the west coast. Seems like they get the shaft. Perfect example, American Idol. They say the phone lines are open for 2 hours so by he time the west coast airs it he phone lines are closed? I would not like a lot of live content on tape delay. I can see how it would lower ratings on the west coast high I everyone was Watching an earlier episode o shows. All in all really I people are paying for their locals and want to pay more to see the shows earlier via DNS who cares. Everyone's getting paid.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> Perfect example, American Idol. They say the phone lines are open for 2 hours so by he time the west coast airs it he phone lines are closed?


Sort of. The lines reopen for the two hours after the west coast replay. And thanks to automatic number identification, they know where you are calling from ... so they can close the east coast area codes at their two hour mark and not accept west coast calls until the appropriate time.

The idea behind the provision in STELA is to make sure a local station doesn't lose viewers to a distant that airs programs earlier. The affiliation agreement that local station has with the network gives them the right to air the program first in their market. The law is written so those rights are not infringed.

No local station no infringement no problem.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Here is another odd question that people might enjoy discussing. I am quoting from the final language of STELA:
> 
> (iii) TIME-SHIFTING PROHIBITED- In a case in which the satellite carrier makes available to an eligible subscriber under this subparagraph the signal of a local network station pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the distant signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that subscriber if, in the case of any local market in the 48 contiguous States of the United States, the distant signal is the secondary transmission of a station whose prime time network programming is generally broadcast simultaneously with, or later than, the prime time network programming of the affiliate of the same network in the local market.';
> 
> The time-shifting prohibition appears to be only prohibiting the earlier station when a distant network is provided into a market that already has a local station affiliated with the same network. As worded, it would not include a network station provided to a short market (a market that lacked that same network as a local).


Nor does it apply where the satellite carrier does not provide LIL service, which means, theoretically, it does not apply to AAD at all.



> When would a distant network station be provided to a viewer in a market where there already is a local of the same network? I can only think of two situations--either the viewer is a grandfathered viewer, or the viewer has a waiver.


Right, and there's a new grandfather provision that seems to allow you to continue receiving indefinitely any distant once legally obtained, and there are other provisions that I think allow for station-specific waivers, so the applicability even in those situations is ambiguous. My guess is the time-shifting prohibition would be considered prevailing, but that gets into rules of statutory construction beyond my knowledge.



> I would be interested to hear anyone else's opinion. I know that AAD thinks that they cannot provide an earlier HD network (i.e. Chicago HD to California), but I am not aware that this section has ever been litigated. I feel that, after a careful reading, a judge will agree that an earlier distant can be provided to a market that lacks that same network affiliate.


The new provision supersedes an old provision that did preclude AAD from providing eastern DNS to the west. AAD's policy may change once STELA becomes law and the FCC enacts implementing regs.

Otoh, STELA seems clearly to preclude the provision of more than two signals in total, whether HD or SD, so I do not think AAD can continue offering SD from NY and SF plus HD from a third city to the same customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> The new provision supersedes an old provision that did preclude AAD from providing eastern DNS to the west. AAD's policy may change once STELA becomes law and the FCC enacts implementing regs.


So this is actually a loosening of the rules for distants.



> Otoh, STELA seems clearly to preclude the provision of more than two signals in total, whether HD or SD, so I do not think AAD can continue offering SD from NY and SF plus HD from a third city to the same customers.


It is a lot easier to regulate distants based on the provider, the provider offering LIL or the provider offering multiple DNS choices but the law COULD be read as applying based on the customer. DISH providing LIL should not preclude DirecTV providing a distant to that market (unless DirecTV also provides LIL) because that would force the customer to have more than one provider to get the networks. But once the customer HAS distants provided to them I believe it could be customer based. No more than two distants of a network can be provided to the customer. But I'm sure that there are people who are happy that they can get more distants by having multiple providers.

With the regulations tied to providers the customers also lose out because the connection to the provider. A customer is grandfathered with their current provider ... if they decided to change providers they lose their grandfathering. I'd like to see some portability there. If a person HAS a distant of a network today (before enactment) via AAD or DirecTV why should they lose it by switching to DISH (once distants are available)? The customer should be qualified. But alas, it is the pairing of the customer and their provider that qualified them for distants. Break the pair and grandfathering ends.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I am satisfied that the new STELA does not preclude providing an earlier distant to a short market, as long as the distant station is providing the missing network to the short market. I also agree that, at least in theory, the time-shifting provision does not apply to AAD at all, since AAD does not provide local-into-local service. I hope that AAD and Dish understand this and begin to provide earlier HD distants to the west coast where it is legal to do so. We will have to see how it all plays out.

I agree that the grandfathering should be customer based, rather than carrier based, but I think that that will have to wait until the next rewrite of STELA.

About a year ago, I watched the House Telecommunications Subcommittee hearing on STELA (then called SHVERA). They had representatives from NAB, AAD, Dish, and Direct testifying. AAD and Dish generally wanted the rules regarding provision of distants to be loosened. The NAB representative wanted the distant license to be eliminated from the new law. In other words, the NAB version of the law would simply eliminate satellite from providing distant stations.

When the NAB representative was questioned about short markets, he said that he was unaware of any short markets. The members of congress had heard enough from their constituents that they seemed to know about the situation with short markets, and the NAB representative lost some credibility.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I agree that the grandfathering should be customer based, rather than carrier based, but I think that that will have to wait until the next rewrite of STELA.


December 2014.



> When the NAB representative was questioned about short markets, he said that he was unaware of any short markets. The members of congress had heard enough from their constituents that they seemed to know about the situation with short markets, and the NAB representative lost some credibility.


Some of the shortness was created by Congress when they decided to use market boundries instead of RF coverage to define markets. I don't mind expanding a station's coverage to include an entire market, but excluding a station's coverage simply because of a line on a map is not good. The 2004 law loosened that up a little with the addition of SV stations but it still didn't fix the issue. I wish we didn't have to wait five years between tweaks. Many short markets are solved by importing a neighbor who already has RF coverage (or should) of a portion of the market.

For those deep white areas where there is no local affiliate or close affiliate distants have their place ... but carriage is a government taking. Some network station is having their signal taken without their permission and rebroadcast somewhere they have no intention of being seen. The network itself is having their signal used where no affiliate is in place. It is the network's signal that they provide to affiliates under contract ... the distant's legislation overrides that contract with only a minimal statutory royalty payment.

Best case for broadcasters would be to have carriage of the most local affiliate to each customer. Perhaps not the closest station as some affiliates have a larger reach and better serve the distant corners of their states better than a station from the next state over ... but certainly better than a NY or LA station serves someplace they have never heard of.

Perhaps "distants" should go away by 2014 and the networks should work out some better way of getting their affiliates and signals to 100% of America ... even by redefining their affiliation agreement to include satellite carriage. I'd rather see it done through the cooperation of the providers instead of a government taking.

But I also understand that there are those who want every local from every market and don't see a reason to protect the network's affiliation agreements. STELA is probably a happy medium.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Some short markets may be fixed by redefining the market boundaries to be consistent with the expected RF coverage, but not all short markets will be fixed that way. There will still be deep white areas, and even urban white areas that just are not covered by the expected RF coverage.

The idea of having the white area covered by a station that is nearby may not work in all situations. First, the law calls a distant a distant, whether it is a "near" distant or a "far" distant, the law makes no distinction. Second, it may be more efficient for a satellite carrier to have some distants on CONUS, rather than trying to spill spotbeams to areas where it may not be convenient to do so. Ultimately, the best idea in my opinion is to let the viewer decide whether he/she wants a "near" distant or a "far" distant. Some people want to watch the news or other programs from NY, SF, Chicago, or LA, and the importation of a distant allows them to do so.

Although the distant station may be imported to an area where the station had no intention of being seen, and the network had no contract to cover that area, that is still a good result. The alternative is that some viewers would be frozen out of our national discussion. The networks would not cover these areas due to high cost--low population and great expense of setting up a local station in the lightly populated areas. In the case of importation of a distant signal, the satellite carrier makes a royalty payment. No one is injured.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Some short markets may be fixed by redefining the market boundaries to be consistent with the expected RF coverage, but not all short markets will be fixed that way. There will still be deep white areas, and even urban white areas that just are not covered by the expected RF coverage.


ATSC TV does seem to have created some holes but for the purpose of choosing which local affiliate should fill the urban white area the most likely candidate would be the affiliate that covers the surrounding area.

Starting with locals and working out to nearby affiliates is a progression ... not a hard fast rule.



> Second, it may be more efficient for a satellite carrier to have some distants on CONUS, rather than trying to spill spotbeams to areas where it may not be convenient to do so.


Spotbeams don't spill. They have coverage areas and fringes. Beams are not adjusted post launch to cover new areas. Power can be adjusted up to the maximum the FCC allows (which can help turn all of the fringes of a spot beam into "coverage" but can also interfere with the next spot using that downlink frequency).

If the beams are small they may not even adequately cover their own market (which is an exception that allows for distant carriage). In most areas the beam is big enough to cover it's own market(s), any SV areas and more.



> Ultimately, the best idea in my opinion is to let the viewer decide whether he/she wants a "near" distant or a "far" distant. Some people want to watch the news or other programs from NY, SF, Chicago, or LA, and the importation of a distant allows them to do so.


Your opinion is shared by many who post here ... but not the potential subscribers who just want their satellite service to give them the local networks they could get via cable or OTA with the right antenna (and perhaps a time machine back to the days of NTSC).



> The alternative is that some viewers would be frozen out of our national discussion. The networks would not cover these areas due to high cost--low population and great expense of setting up a local station in the lightly populated areas. In the case of importation of a distant signal, the satellite carrier makes a royalty payment. No one is injured.


The closer the station the more potential for relevant discussion. Yes, some local stations have failed to provide local news and issues - or just barely meet the FCC requirements - but a decent Michigan station is going to give better coverage of Michigan issues than a New York station.

The national discussion is carried on all network stations. It is what is between the national content that makes the difference. Given the choice of no affiliate and a distant NY/Chicago/LA the distant would win ... but if there is a more local choice - something from in state or close to the border - in most cases the viewer would be better served in applying that national discussion to what matters locally.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Spotbeams don't spill. They have coverage areas and fringes. Beams are not adjusted post launch to cover new areas. Power can be adjusted up to the maximum the FCC allows (which can help turn all of the fringes of a spot beam into "coverage" but can also interfere with the next spot using that downlink frequency).


But what about large states, like California, where there may be another market to the north, one to the west, one to the south, and one to the east? Which market do you use? What if the spotbeam does not cover the entire area? What distinction does STELA make between neighboring markets and distants? I am not aware of any distinction. A distant five miles away is the same as a distant a thousand miles away, in the eyes of the law.

Taking a station without its permission and making it available in a market five miles away, or a thousand miles away, is the same thing. Besides, the distant stations being imported generally have no complaints. It is the local stations that do not want another station brought into a market, causing them to lose their exclusivity, that STELA protects. It is designed to protect the local station, not the distant station. A distant station being imported into a short market or a white area hurts no station and no person.



James Long said:


> Your opinion is shared by many who post here ... but not the potential subscribers who just want their satellite service to give them the local networks they could get via cable or OTA with the right antenna (and perhaps a time machine back to the days of NTSC).


Perhaps these are the people who should consider purchasing cable, or a rooftop antenna. There is no reason that all the services should be identical. There will always be reasons why some people prefer satellite, other people prefer cable, other people prefer OTA. Distants may be one of those reasons.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> But what about large states, like California, where there may be another market to the north, one to the west, one to the south, and one to the east? Which market do you use?


There seems to be enough spot coverage in California that one would have their pick. Do you have a specific California market in mind? Chances are the spot beam that provides that markets locals will have an out of market affiliate for any missing network.

What affiliate would a cable operator offer in that market?



> Taking a station without its permission and making it available in a market five miles away, or a thousand miles away, is the same thing.


You are more likely to visit an advertiser seen on a neighboring market station than one in NY. Although many stations seem to desire money for permission to rebroadcast there is advertising value in reaching the extra people. Stations may complain about the taking of their signal but they'll accept the ratings points.



> Perhaps these are the people who should consider purchasing cable, or a rooftop antenna. There is no reason that all the services should be identical. There will always be reasons why some people prefer satellite, other people prefer cable, other people prefer OTA. Distants may be one of those reasons.


With distants virtually unavailable in most of the nation (95% of television households do not qualify under the current law) I don't see them as a major selling point nationwide. Distants help in the places where nothing else is available or for RVs.

Satellite has been operating at a disadvantage for years ... some due to technology, some due to decisions made. STELA is a good step at leveling the playing field ... a better step than the old law. I believe most satellite customers will be happy.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

So what is the difference, legally, between a distant that is from the next market over and a distant from a thousand miles away? Does STELA make any distinction?

If Congress has not chosen to make a distinction between the next market over or a market a thousand miles away, then why shouldn't the viewer and the satellite company be able to choose which station, either from a neighboring market or a market a thousand miles away?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> ... then why shouldn't the viewer and the satellite company be able to choose which station, either from a neighboring market or a market a thousand miles away?


The satellite company WILL be making the decision as to which stations they offer. They can even choose to offer no distant stations. As stated before I believe they will go with the stations most requested by their subscribers on a market by market basis.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

But the question still remains, did Congress define in any way distant stations from great distances away any differently from distant stations from neighboring markets? I'm not referring to significantly viewed stations. I am referring to stations not available in a market unless imported in via the distant network license.

Did Congress even include any persuasive language, such as "distant stations from neighboring markets are preferred over distant stations from larger distances"? Or is there anything in the legislative history that indicates that Congress prefers "distant stations from neighboring markets" over "distant stations from larger distances" or "distant stations from big cities"?

Or did Congress go in the opposite direction, in fact grandfathering all distant station subscribers? Thus protecting their access to the distant station, even when a local station becomes available?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As anyone said Congress has? If this is so important to you perhaps you should read the bill and answer your own question. It is only 112 pages.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Have you read it? I have. The point that I am making is that the concept of "neighboring distant" is something that does not exist in the law. If it is a distant, it is a distant, whether from five miles or five thousand miles away. Congress has made no distinction.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It doesn't make sense to keep asking a question that you already have the answer to, unless you're James Lipton.

The closest thing to a "neighboring distant" is the significantly viewed stations ... stations we've been referring to as close distants for over five years now. As current law classifies these as distants the name is perfectly fitting.

In the STELA powered future we'll have locals, SVs and distants ... and they will likely be offered in that order. If you can get additional channels great!


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

But you keep skipping around the definition of "distants." That is the key to this discussion, yet you have created an artificial distinction between "neighboring distants" and "distants." "Neighboring distants" do not exist in STELA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> But you keep skipping around the definition of "distants." That is the key to this discussion, yet you have created an artificial distinction between "neighboring distants" and "distants." "Neighboring distants" do not exist in STELA.


I'm sorry if you have misread any of my posts.

Satellite providers are free to offer _and not offer_ any out of market network station as a distant to a qualified customer. Qualified customers are free to choose up to two affiliates of each network any distant stations that the satellite provider chooses to offer to that customer. Satellite providers are not required to offer any particular station as a distant or to offer distant network stations at all.

I expect networks will be provided to customers by their satellite providers in the order previously discussed for the reasons previously given. Proximity matters to most customers. The average satellite customer isn't the guy with a C band dish or two in his back yard experimenting as much as watching TV. We're talking about retail customers who want transparent service ... cable from the sky ... with all the channels that their neighbors with cable or the folks in town with cable can get. And if they can get a better service through price, sports offerings or quality they will take that too.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I'm sorry if you have misread any of my posts.
> 
> Satellite providers are free to offer _and not offer_ any out of market network station as a distant to a qualified customer. Qualified customers are free to choose up to two affiliates of each network any distant stations that the satellite provider chooses to offer to that customer. Satellite providers are not required to offer any particular station as a distant or to offer distant network stations at all.
> 
> I expect networks will be provided to customers by their satellite providers in the order previously discussed for the reasons previously given. Proximity matters to most customers. The average satellite customer isn't the guy with a C band dish or two in his back yard experimenting as much as watching TV. We're talking about retail customers who want transparent service ... cable from the sky ... with all the channels that their neighbors with cable or the folks in town with cable can get. And if they can get a better service through price, sports offerings or quality they will take that too.


I don't believe I have misread any of your posts. I furthermore agree with your last post. And I think that you have done an excellent job moderating the discussions in this forum. You have a vast store of knowledge with regard to Dish Network, and with regard to satellite television in general. If anything, a little debate can sharpen both people.


----------



## imnaha (Dec 18, 2006)

So what does this all mean for northeast Oregon residents in the Yakima WA DMA? Is Directv finally allowed to carry any Portland channels into Umatilla County as Charter Cable now does?


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

Unfortunately, the revised law does nothing for your case. The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations050310.pdf)

This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jon Ellis said:


> This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.


For clarity: It will allow DISH to do what DirecTV could already do.
"SVs" blocked by the injunction are immediately available.
"Distants" in markets that did not have DISH local-into-local service on Dec 31st are available as of the issuance of a temporary waiver last week.
"Distants" into markets that had DISH local-into-local service on Dec 31st and to RV customers remain unavailable until a FCC/court process is followed.

DirecTV can, today, do everything DISH has is able to do again and more. Nothing less.

(And yes, you are correct in your assessment of Umatilla County.)


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

James Long said:


> "SVs" blocked by the injunction are immediately available.


You might instead say that DISH has the immediate option to offer them. Whether or not they are available to subscribers is up to DISH.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jon Ellis said:


> You might instead say that DISH has the immediate option to offer them. Whether or not they are available to subscribers is up to DISH.


You're right ... DISH is under no obligation to offer them and there are plenty of examples where DISH is not offering a SV station where they could easily do so (and fill in missing network coverage).


----------



## oyving (Sep 16, 2003)

Jon Ellis said:


> The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations050310.pdf)


Thanks for this link. Now I am in Lee County, Illinois and the list says I should be getting more than I am. How would I proceed with Directv if I can?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

oyving said:


> Thanks for this link. Now I am in Lee County, Illinois and the list says I should be getting more than I am. How would I proceed with Directv if I can?


"Should" probably isn't the right word. The law and the list give satellite providers _permission_ to carry significantly viewed stations. It does not mandate carriage.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

It might not hurt to give DirecTV a call or drop them an e-mail, though. They might add the SV stations if enough people request them.


----------



## imnaha (Dec 18, 2006)

imnaha said:


> So what does this all mean for northeast Oregon residents in the Yakima WA DMA? Is Directv finally allowed to carry any Portland channels into Umatilla County as Charter Cable now does?





Jon Ellis said:


> Unfortunately, the revised law does nothing for your case. The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations050310.pdf)
> 
> This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.


I appreciate the information. What I've never understood is why the FCC refuses to place Portland stations on the SV list for Umatilla County.

Four translators carry Portland stations specifically into Umatilla County. Several more translators in the same area carry Spokane stations into neighboring Walla Walla County, and yet Walla Walla County gets Spokane stations on its SV list. Walla Walla County is also in the Yakima DMA, and its border is within a few miles of all the "Big-Three" Tri-Cities stations. The FCCs own coverage maps for these translators clearly show the translators' service areas are for both Umatilla and Walla Walla counties.

Perhaps someone could explain how one county gets SV stations on its list, and the other does not. One could argue that Umatilla County should have both Portland and Spokane stations on its SV list. Some of the Spokane translators are practically next door to the Portland translators on the same mountain.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

In my limited experience, SV = on cable. If the Umatilla County cable systems don't carry Portland stations, then they really aren't SV. If they do, then that's your argument for adding them to the SV list.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> In my limited experience, SV = on cable.


That _*is*_ the point of SV. Stations fight for SV status so they can be on cable systems that normally wouldn't carry them.


> If the Umatilla County cable systems don't carry Portland stations, then they really aren't SV.


True. If they were SV the Umatilla County systems would be forced to carry them.

On cable doesn't mean a station is SV ... stations (even "out of market" stations) can get cable carriage without being SV. But if a station has gained SV status the only reason why it wouldn't be on cable would be if the cable system were small and had already met its quota for OTA stations.

BTW: Even if the stations were SV, carrying a Portland network station in Umatilla County would require the permission of the same network Yakima market stations. It is unfortunate - but cable and satellite laws are still not a level playing field. There are still instances of "cable can" where "satellite cannot" in the laws.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The FCC maintains a list of "significantly viewed" stations. It has to do with over-the-air penetration of an adjacent market, not cable coverage per se in an adjacent market. Cable and satellite penetration in the Monterey-Salinas market is over 90 percent, and all those viewers cable and satellite customers receive KGO from San Francisco, the adjacent market. Yet, even though virtually everyone in Monterey-Salinas views KGO, it is not "significantly viewed" in that market. In fact, it covers news in Monterey-Salinas and provides all the ABC programs. It may even be the most popular station in that market, yet it is not "significantly viewed" in that market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The FCC maintains a list of "significantly viewed" stations. It has to do with over-the-air penetration of an adjacent market, not cable coverage per se in an adjacent market.


It has nothing to do with cable coverage at all - except that being the goal of getting the station on the SV list. Cable viewership does not count toward the viewership level needed to be a Significantly Viewed station.

It also has nothing to do with adjacent markets. The SV list is not market specific, it is county (and in some cases city) specific. If the station met the threshold for over the air viewership in 1972 when the list was created by the FCC or met the threshold in a later year and were added the station is Significantly Viewed for the county/city specified.

In some ways heavy cable penetration and carriage prevents a channel from becoming Significantly viewed since only over the air viewing counts.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

It is important to note that the FCC does not update the list automatically. It only makes changes at a station's request... a station that wants to be included as SV, or a station that wants a competitor removed from the SV list. (That's rare, but it happened a year or two ago in Johnson County, Iowa, after the cable system added the SV CBS affiliate from Rock Island, IL, amid a retransmission consent dispute with the Cedar Rapids CBS affiliate.)

There are many cases where a station has not had a reason to get itself added to the SV list. There are many big-four network affiliates that have come on the air since the early 1970's that are not listed as SV anywhere (the station I work at, KQDS-TV in Duluth, is an example of that).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Being listed as SV is not a requirement to gain cable carriage.
That's the biggest problem I see with using this list for satellite.
Stations who already have cable coverage don't need to be SV.

STELA has changed it so satellite providers can petition to have stations added to the SV list. But it being based solely on over-the-air ratings the threshold may not be met, even on the most popular cable carried local stations.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> It also has nothing to do with adjacent markets. The SV list is not market specific, it is county (and in some cases city) specific. If the station met the threshold for over the air viewership in 1972 when the list was created by the FCC or met the threshold in a later year and were added the station is Significantly Viewed for the county/city specified.
> 
> In some ways heavy cable penetration and carriage prevents a channel from becoming Significantly viewed since only over the air viewing counts.


I stated in my post that the issue is over-the-air viewing. KGO is seen by 90 percent or more of the viewers in Monterey-Salinas, yet is not "significantly viewed" in that market because it lacks over-the-air penetration of that market. All those viewers are on cable/satellite.

While you are legally correct that it has nothing to do with adjacent markets, in reality it will almost always if not always be a "significantly viewed" station from an adjacent market, unless it is a local station in the market. However, if it is a local station, then the carriage of the station is likely already occurring. Virtually all the discussion on the board is about "significantly viewed" stations that are outside the market.

The area in which a station is "significantly viewed" is specific to portions of the area--county or city where it is "significantly viewed," for example.

It is interesting to note that the non-competition clause that AAD and Dish are working under specifically states that nothing in the clause shall restrict Dish from carrying "significantly viewed" stations. Thus, the agreement contemplated that Dish might seek to carry out-of-market stations as "significantly viewed" stations, even if the same stations were being carried by AAD as distant stations.

It is that non-competition clause, plus KGO's status as not being a "significantly viewed" station in Monterey-Salinas, that prevents Dish from offering KGO in Monterey-Salinas, and instead Dish is preparing to offer a Santa Barbara ABC affiliate (assuming that Dish ever regains the distant license). Unless and until Dish regains that license, Dish does not offer ABC in Monterey-Salinas.

Can you identify a "significantly viewed" station that is not from an adjacent market and is not a local station? A station that, in other words, is from two markets over or farther away?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I stated in my post that the issue is over-the-air viewing.


Read your full previous statement. It is pretty short and includes the statement "not cable coverage per se in an adjacent market." The threshold for qualifying for SV does NOT include cable carriage _at all_. Saying "cable coverage per se" [by itself] was wrong. As wrong as saying "The ERA has to do with the number of runs scored by the Dodgers, not the rushing yards of the Rams per se."



> While you are legally correct that it has nothing to do with adjacent markets, in reality it will almost always if not always be a "significantly viewed" station from an adjacent market, unless it is a local station in the market.


"The fruit will be an apple (unless it is a orange)." The fact remains that markets do not define what is or is not a SV station. No need to muddy up the definition by even mentioning adjacent markets.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Well aren't all the discussions here about "significantly viewed" stations dealing with customers' desire to get "significantly viewed" stations carried in an adjacent market?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Well aren't all the discussions here about "significantly viewed" stations dealing with customers' desire to get "significantly viewed" stations carried in an adjacent market?


The question was how stations become listed as significantly viewed.


----------



## imnaha (Dec 18, 2006)

Fascinating discussion. I appreciate all of your contributions. Sounds like it is nearly impossible to get the Portland stations on Umatilla County's SV list.

Bottom line is this:

1. No Portland stations are currently on the SV list for Umatilla County.

2. All cable systems in Umatilla County now carry Portland stations. (I guess that's irrelevant in terms of SV status.)

3. Several Portland stations have translators in Umatilla County targeting parts of Umatilla County.

4. In 2004, Senators Ron Wyden (D) and former Senator Gordon Smith (R) succeeded in passing legislation that would have made an exemption to the SV rules for Umatilla County and several other Oregon counties, but it never became reality (as far as I know). Here's the link to Wyden's original press release from 2004:

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=a172fa11-5706-4b68-bce9-51d57f33e02d

A bipartisan attempt was made by the Senators to grant an exemption for Umatilla County so that we could get the Portland stations on satellite. I've been unable to get Senator Wyden's office to respond to my questions about this for an update.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

imnaha said:


> 4. In 2004, Senators Ron Wyden (D) and former Senator Gordon Smith (R) succeeded in passing legislation that would have made an exemption to the SV rules for Umatilla County and several other Oregon counties, but it never became reality (as far as I know). Here's the link to Wyden's original press release from 2004:
> 
> http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=a172fa11-5706-4b68-bce9-51d57f33e02d


Sending to the president looks like it should be law, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 rolled into the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations bill.

That sounds like 47 USC 341:
§ 341. Carriage of television signals to certain subscribers

(a)(1) IN GENERAL.-A cable operator or satellite carrier may elect to retransmit, to subscribers in an eligible county-

(A) any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located and that any cable operator or satellite carrier was retransmitting to subscribers in the county on January 1, 2004; or

(B) up to 2 television broadcast stations located in the State in which the county is located, if the number of television broadcast stations that the cable operator or satellite carrier is authorized to carry under paragraph (1) is less than 3.

(2) DEEMED SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED.-A station described in subsection (a) of this section is deemed to be significantly viewed in the eligible county within the meaning of section 76.54 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 76.54).

(3) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE COUNTY.-For purposes of this section, the term ''eligible county'' means any 1 of 4 counties that-

(A) are all in a single State;

(B) on January 1, 2004, were each in designated market areas in which the majority of counties were located in another State or States; and

(C) as a group had a combined total of 41,340 television households according to the U.S. Television Household Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2003-2004.

(4) LIMITATION.-Carriage of a station under this section shall be at the option of the cable operator or satellite carrier.

(b) CERTAIN MARKETS.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a satellite carrier may not carry the signal of a television station into an adjacent local market that is comprised of only a portion of a county, other than to unserved households located in that county.​Congress likes to write in special rules for special areas without actually naming those special areas. It makes it hard to know what the special area is unless it is noted at the time the law was passed.

IF this matches the correct description the stations could be SV via this section of law ... then it would simply be up to DISH (or DirecTV) to carry the stations when they have the desire to do so.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

imnaha said:


> 2. All cable systems in Umatilla County now carry Portland stations. (I guess that's irrelevant in terms of SV status.)


SV is only one way cable systems can carry out-of-market stations. They can also carry stations if they're a certain distance from the in-market affiliate, or if they have a small number of subscribers. Satellite doesn't have this option. Also, I believe the way the rules are written, a cable system can carry any PBS/non-comm station it wants.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Jon Ellis said:


> Unfortunately, the revised law does nothing for your case. The only way DirecTV could offer Portland stations in Umatilla County is if they appeared on the signficantly viewed list for the county, but they do not. (The list is at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations050310.pdf)
> 
> This law does not really change anything for DirecTV, that I've seen, it only helps DISH Network by restoring some options that had been removed by a court order.


It does allow DirecTV to go into, say, St Joseph, MO and offer KC locals (since just about every major KC local is considered SV) as well as the ONE station in that DMA. That puts Directv far ahead of St Joe Cablevision as far as that goes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Terry K said:


> It does allow DirecTV to go into, say, St Joseph, MO and offer KC locals (since just about every major KC local is considered SV) as well as the ONE station in that DMA. That puts Directv far ahead of St Joe Cablevision as far as that goes.


Has DirecTV done that yet? DISH has. DISH used St Joseph as one of their examples of why SV were needed so it makes sense that they actually provided the channels as soon as STELA moved SVs over from the distants law to the locals law for satellite carriers.

But in many other markets DISH has bypassed the SV stations and is carrying (or apparently planning on carrying) channels that are distants. Personally I believe DISH (and DirecTV) should provide SVs to the fullest extent of the law before providing distants.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

Terry K said:


> It does allow DirecTV to go into, say, St Joseph, MO and offer KC locals (since just about every major KC local is considered SV) as well as the ONE station in that DMA. That puts Directv far ahead of St Joe Cablevision as far as that goes.


DirecTV was already allowed to do that. In Mankato, MN, they offer Mankato CBS with Minneapolis ABC, FOX, and NBC.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Has DirecTV done that yet? DISH has. DISH used St Joseph as one of their examples of why SV were needed so it makes sense that they actually provided the channels as soon as STELA moved SVs over from the distants law to the locals law for satellite carriers.
> 
> But in many other markets DISH has bypassed the SV stations and is carrying (or apparently planning on carrying) channels that are distants. Personally I believe DISH (and DirecTV) should provide SVs to the fullest extent of the law before providing distants.


I'm not sure what D* is doing up there yet. But St Joe Cablevision refuses to carry KCWE or KSMO since they would cut into their precious CW 100+ stuff.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Terry K said:


> I'm not sure what D* is doing up there yet. But St Joe Cablevision refuses to carry KCWE or KSMO since they would cut into their precious CW 100+ stuff.


Using Zip 64506 and choosing Buchanan County, DirecTV's website shows only the PBS national feed, in SD, as a St Joseph local.

DISH offers the local ABC; CBS, NBC and FOX from Kansas City; and the PBS national feed - all in SD. No CW from either provider as far as I can tell.


----------



## jep8821 (Jun 24, 2007)

directv offering national feeds for Saint Joe MO? I entered my zip (64503) and it is showing nationals from 60 -65 (in HD)??? I am suprised KQ2 is allowing them to provide ABC. I cannot verify that though for specific reasons

Thanks.

Jason


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

jep8821 said:


> directv offering national feeds for Saint Joe MO? I entered my zip (64503) and it is showing nationals from 60 -65 (in HD)??? I am suprised KQ2 is allowing them to provide ABC. I cannot verify that though for specific reasons
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jason


Just gonna take a guess here. Having to look uo your zip code and not able to verify it sounds to me like it means one of two things. Either you dont have any locals which you probably would of just stated that and been excited you could get something or you use a different service address. Am I getting close?


----------



## jep8821 (Jun 24, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Just gonna take a guess here. Having to look uo your zip code and not able to verify it sounds to me like it means one of two things. Either you dont have any locals which you probably would of just stated that and been excited you could get something or you use a different service address. Am I getting close?


I moved to Saint Joe this past January. Before that I lived in a small town south of Saint Joe but still in buchanan county. I might have "moved" to a KC serveral years ago to get KC locals. I actually tried last year to change my service address back to my real address because with an out door antenna I could get all of the KC local HD stations but the Directv rep saw I would loose the KC locals from them and only changed the address in one location and not the other. I also already have the east and west DNS SD feeds(used to have HD as well but the took them away) from when I had waivers on file. Since I moved to Saint Joe this past January, I don't have an out door antenna so I want to keep the KC stations so I don't want to change anything.

Thanks,

Jason


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

jep8821 said:


> I moved to Saint Joe this past January. Before that I lived in a small town south of Saint Joe but still in buchanan county. I might have "moved" to a KC serveral years ago to get KC locals. I actually tried last year to change my service address back to my real address because with an out door antenna I could get all of the KC local HD stations but the Directv rep saw I would loose the KC locals from them and only changed the address in one location and not the other. I also already have the east and west DNS SD feeds(used to have HD as well but the took them away) from when I had waivers on file. Since I moved to Saint Joe this past January, I don't have an out door antenna so I want to keep the KC stations so I don't want to change anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason


I'm not judging. I have thought about it numerous times myself. I am missing FOX and CBS here but could fib about my address and get the Tulsa DMA which is what I want anyways but I dont. To each their own. I just take what the law and D* says I am supposed to have. I wont say that they make it easy to decide to keep doing the right thing. I live on Oklahoma but get my locals from Kansas and Missouri. Thats just wrong but I have to live with it. Supposedly the remaining locals will be added sometime this year. When that happens I have to decide if I want to keep paying $14 a month for SD DNS feeds. Im thinking add another DVR and then I will have all the tuners I need so I wont need the west coast stations anymore but I dont know. The DNS feeds are nice.


----------

