# H.R. 2821 Adjacent markets considered local



## arkieboy (Nov 8, 2005)

Hopefully, everyone will keep up with this legislation that was introduced today (June 21st, 2007) and stay on their congressman to get it passed:


(Washington, D.C.) U.S. Representative Mike Ross (AR-04) introduced bipartisan legislation Thursday to give satellite and cable customers across the nation access to their in-state news, sports, and local programming. 


Ross’ legislation, The Television Freedom Act of 2007, will give satellite and cable companies the ability to provide their customers local channels from their home state allowing them to watch their local news, sports, and programming. 



“The time has come to stop delivering 21st Century technologies with 1950's business practices,” Ross said. “Americans should not be bound by outdated laws that prevent them from receiving their home state programming. Everyone who wishes to receive their local channels in their home state should have the option to do so, and that is why I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that all Arkansans have access to Arkansas programming. Arkansans want to watch the Arkansas Razorbacks and my bill will give those who live on or near the border of another state the ability to watch the Hogs – not the LSU Tigers.”



Current law specifies that television broadcast stations be transmitted primarily within their designated market area (DMA), which is assigned by the Nielsen Media Research Company. Because of these laws, many consumers cannot receive the local channels of the state in which they live and work. In addition, 47 percent of designated market areas (DMAs) cross a state line, which means that millions of subscribers are left watching the local channels of their neighboring state.



Ross said The Television Freedom Act of 2007 will bring the DMA system and the Satellite Home Viewer Act into the 21st Century. 



“This issue affects countless residents across Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District and it is one of the top concerns I hear about from people all over the state,” Ross said. “I strongly believe that all Arkansans should have the ability to watch Arkansas programming and this legislation would get rid of outdated regulations and give them that ability.”



Ross holds a seat on the coveted House Energy and Commerce Committee where this legislation will be referred. Ross’ bipartisan legislation is being cosponsored by Reps. Barbara Cubin (WY-At Large) and Dan Boren (OK-02).


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Looks like someone is trying to use some simple common sense in approaching this issue, which is why it'll probably never happen:lol: Hey I hope it goes through it would definitely be a step in the right direction. I still say the best way to deal w/ it is to remove DMA's from the equation altogether and just have a rule that says your satellite or cable provider is allowed to provide you any signal from broadcast that originates within 60 miles of where you live. If you don't live within 60 miles of any particular network's broadcast then your television provider is allowed to offer you your choice of the broadcast of that network from your region and/or a national feed. The simpler the better!


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

There's a few of these floating around:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.602:
To amend section 119 of title 17, United States Code, to allow the secondary transmission to any subscriber in the State of Oklahoma of primary transmissions of local network stations in that State.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2821:
To amend section 122 of title 17, United States Code, and the Communications Act of 1934 to permit satellite carriers and cable operators to retransmit the signals of local television broadcast stations to their adjacent markets, and for other purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.258:
A bill to clarify provisions relating to statutory copyright licenses for satellite carriers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.760:
A bill to provide certain counties with the ability to receive television broadcast signals of their choice.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.256:
A bill to harmonize rate setting standards for copyright licenses under section 112 and 114 of title 17, United States Code, and for other purposes.

See ya
Tony


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

In my wildest fantacies about this subject I would see a law that would look something like this:

Return to sanity act of (fill in the year)

Satellite, IPTV or any multi-channel service provider that does not own/lease/maintain/control a physical line from the system head end to the subscriber may provide any and all broadcast channels to a subscriber
1) predicted as providing a grade A or B signal using the longley-rice prediction scheme to the subscribers' service address.
and
2) that serves the designated marketing area of the subscriber's physical address.

Cable/FiOS or any multi-channel service provider that owns/leases/maintains/controls a physical line from the system head end to the subscriber may provide any and all broadcast channels to subscribers where
1) the broadcast channel is predicted to provide a grade A or B signal using the longley-rice prediction scheme 
a)to the physical head end of the cable system AND the area distribution hub where there is a separation of no more than 30 miles between the head end and area distribution hub
b)to the distribution hub where there is a separation of more than 30 miles between the pysical head end and distribution hub.
2)the broadcast channel is in the designated marketing area serving the subscriber's address.

Broadcast channels when available on the service provider are to be provided at no additional charge to all subscribers, paying customers, accounts or any other designation the company choses when providing any video service to the customer.

Broadcast stations may not charge a video distribution service a fee of any kind or any sort of in-kind service exchage or consideration. Stations that do so or refuse permission for retransmission will be fined the market value of the bandwidth and frequecy the FCC licensed the station to use each day until the station complies. After 365 days of fines, the station will surrender its broadcast license to the FCC and the owner will be fined 4 times the market value of the TV station had it been sold before the violation.

The previous "must carry" provisions will continue for all broadcast stations within the designated marketing area.

A TV Station outside a subscriber's designated marketing area which is currently available on the same system to subscribers in that station's DMA must be made available to qualifying distant subscribers at no additional charge for the service only. This does not include any additional equipment a subscriber would require nor installation fees to receive the signal when additional equipment is required at the subscriber's address.

--------------------------------

That is my first draft anyway.  Now some one elect me to Congress. 

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

So let's go thru the list Tony provided, one by one:

HR 602 will allow Oklahomans which are not in a market served by at least one network station based in Oklahoma the ability to scuttle their market in exchange for a market based in Oklahoma. This only affects Ottawa County (Joplin market) in the northeast, three counties in the southeast (Sequoyah and Le Flore in Fort Smith's market and McCurtain County in the Shreveport market) and the three counties in the Oklahoma panhandle, which like squarely in the Amarillo market. That's it.

HR 2821 has yet to be transcribed, but it is most likely the bill sponsored by Ross, Boren and Cubin.

S 258 is the bill which would allow Dish Network to start servicing significantly-viewed channels again.

S 760 is the bill to allow susbscribers in the two counties in southwestern Colorado to choose between their current Albuquerque channels or locals from any of Grand Junction, Colorado Springs or Denver.

None of these bills will affect a tremendous amount of people.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Well Tony, you lost me where you wrote different rules for different services. One of my biggest complaints with the entire situation is that the rules are different for cable and satellite. Anything that gives different rights based on type of delivery just seems wrong to me.

As far as responsibility, I understand that there need to be differences due to differences in technology. Demanding that a cable operator provide a channel to a customer because of a house on the edge of their service area's ability to get a Grade B signal where most of that cable company's subscribers cannot get Grade B would be bad. (Which is why I'm glad you were not demanding carriage.)

This started out as a small post and grew ... here's my dream/nightmare ---
*Re-Broadcast Rights*
1) All multi-video distribution service providers regardless of technology are _permitted_ to deliver to their customers any and all signals of local stations that are predicted to be received at their customer's location at Grade B strength or greater. Each coverage area is to be as defined by the FCC. Any zip code where 50% of the area _or_ population is inside the FCC defined contour shall be determined 100% covered. The ILLR method may be used to qualify individual customers outside of the base contour definition. Providers may make showings to the FCC for additional coverage based on terrain.

2) All television broadcast stations licensed by the FCC must _permit_ their signals to be rebroadcast via any and all MVDSs without further compensation. Delivery to customers primarily in the station's OTA Grade B areas (as defined above) via a redistribution system shall be considered the same as delivery via the station's OTA delivery system for copyright purposes. No further fees shall be earned.

3) Stations may seek status as "significantly viewed" based on community or county. No community defined may be smaller than a zip code or named community. This definition will be based on the percentage of TV viewers watching said station via OTA or other means. Should a station not apply for "significantly viewed" status a MVDS provider may apply for that status on their behalf (with status, when earned, applying to that station in regards to all providers). Community groups may also petition to apply "significantly viewed" status to a station based on filing a petition with an appropriate number of signatures - if the number of signatures exceeds 75% of the number of viewers needed for SV status the station will be designated. If the number of signatures exceeds 25% but not 75% of the number of viewers needed valid ratings information must accompany the petition. In all cases, the cost of the ratings information and other research will be paid for by the petitioners (community, provider or station). If a station is deemed "significantly viewed" a provider may carry the signal without further payment of royalties.

4) At the request of the station, their coverage may be extended to cover the entire DMA (as defined by Nielson) that their studios and tower are located in. In the case where studios and tower are located in different DMAs both DMAs will apply. Such request will not obligate the MVDS provider beyond their service area or technological limits.

*Responsibilities*
1) If a MVDS provider delivers any channel of any major network station to a customer they must carry all channels of all stations serving that customer "Grade B" as defined above.

Exception: If a provider cannot receive a signal at sufficient quality for rebroadcast at their headend for that customer or any of their receive facilities that are tied into the system serving that customer they are not required to carry that signal.

2) Receive facilities _shall_ be located in places that are able to receive all signals serving the communities served by the MVDS. Multiple receive locations are permitted, including direct links from stations to the provider's system. A MVDS _may not_ use the location or absence of their receive locations to avoid carrying signals of other stations serving their communities. A station that permits or provides a direct link to one provider cannot prohibit a direct link to another provider. MVDS providers that do not have sufficient receive facilities must show annual progress toward completing 100% carriage of all local signals.

3) All "Grade B" major network stations and any local station ranked ahead of the lowest ranked "major network" station must be delivered to a customer or no station may be delivered. (This includes areas where one or more stations is receivable at the POP but other stations serving that customer Grade B are not.)

Exception: A second (or subsequent) Grade B station of each network is not required to be carried unless it's signal is available at a POP feeding the system.

*Other Out of Market Stations*
1) A customer living outside the Grade B coverage of a station except as covered above via significantly viewed and extended DMA coverage, who has no available local signal from a particular network may be delivered a signal from two of the following:
A) the closest network affiliate (based on ILLR reception strength)
B) the closest network affiliate within their state
C) an owned and operated affiliate of the network
D) any affiliate designated by the network for "distant carriage"

Copyright royalties must be paid for this distant carriage.
Such delivery will end when replaced by a Grade B or equivalent local signal.

I know many won't like it because it isn't a simple "any MVDS can carry any local channel regardless of affiliation to any customer at any time without any limits." But I'm trying to replicate OTA coverage with limited extensions.

And it doesn't even get into the question of digital and subcarriers, which with 2009 quickly approaching needs to be delt with in any rewrite of the laws.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Usually, if one thinks about it, legislation is passed to rectify a wrong. It is why we have Amber Alerts. It is why the Patriot Act was passed.

A few people on this thread commented there should be no compensation to broadcasters in exchange for carriage.

So we go back to 1992. Over half of the people in the US expected their cable bill to be cut in half if their local channels were no longer available on cable.

The proposals regarding removing compensation for carriage are foolhardy. There is no way anyone in Congress will support the idea. ESPN charges almost $3 a month per subscriber to the multichannel vendors. Yet your local network station receives better ratings.

If it were market-based, your local channel would receive a heck of a lot more than the pennies per subscriber they currently receive.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> If it were market-based, your local channel would receive a heck of a lot more than the pennies per subscriber they currently receive.


And if the government auctioned the TV spectrum on a periodic basis (say each license is good for only X years), then the market would show how enormously valuable those broadcast slots are.

Ideally, it's a partnership. Broadcasters get free/cheap access to a very valuable piece of the airwaves. Local viewers with OTA antennae get entertainment, education, and important alerts at no extra cost. When it works right, everybody benefits.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> The proposals regarding removing compensation for carriage are foolhardy. There is no way anyone in Congress will support the idea. ESPN charges almost $3 a month per subscriber to the multichannel vendors. Yet your local network station receives better ratings.


Greg,

The difference is that ESPN did not get a licence to serve a specific community for free. If you look at what I proposed, the cable company could not charge for local channels either!

The difference is in the POV. My contention is that local television stations were granted free spectrum in exchange for serving the local community. There are tons of restrictions on broadcast networks that do not apply to cable channels for this reason. The cable or satellite service is doing nothing more than distributing the signal to people who are, by the station's own admission, part of their targeted audience and community they are charged to serve. Does the cable/satellite system get something out of this? Yes. Subscribership. Does the local channel get something out of this. Yes. Additional viewers.

It is a symbiotic relationship. However any nickel the station charges to cable system is passed on DIRECTLY to the viewers the station is charged to serve. That is where I have the problem. And that's where the "wrong" is I wish to rectify. The damage is to the consumer.

If they want to charge the cable system $3 a month per subscriber they can start up their own cable channels and move the network programming there!
See ya
Tony


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

James,

If you look at the difference in my (nightmare) legislation, they are strictly due to technology and ease of delivery. A cable system does not have the bandwidth to carry three or four cities' locals and that that is what would be needed under your scenario. A cable company generally has distribution hubs within 5 miles of the subscribers home. The head end can be 20-60 miles away or even further now. The "must carry" at the hub would allow for more "local" stations without limiting the bandwidth for other services. Essentially your cable system wouldn't be clogged up with stations you can't get 

The addition of the head-end to the mix of must carry would bring in fringe stations in some areas, but not so many that it would clog up the cable system with "distants" either.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> If you look at the difference in my (nightmare) legislation, they are strictly due to technology and ease of delivery. A cable system does not have the bandwidth to carry three or four cities' locals and that that is what would be needed under your scenario. A cable company generally has distribution hubs within 5 miles of the subscribers home. The head end can be 20-60 miles away or even further now. The "must carry" at the hub would allow for more "local" stations without limiting the bandwidth for other services. Essentially your cable system wouldn't be clogged up with stations you can't get
> 
> The addition of the head-end to the mix of must carry would bring in fringe stations in some areas, but not so many that it would clog up the cable system with "distants" either.


I am basing 'must carry" (and implied consent) on stations that can provide a Grade B signal to that customer ... not to every customer in the operator's system but on a 'community' basis with communities defined as small as a zip code. Under that scenario cable operators could still carry only what is local at that distribution hub ... or at least all stations that are Grade B to any zip code served by that hub. A system with a 20-60 mile stretched coverage area would not have to put the channel on every coax in their super sized system unless they lacked the technology to distribute different locals to different communities.

Perhaps it was poorly written ... but I do not expect a provider to give every customer every local station receivable at their head end ... only every local station receivable at the customer's location. The limitation would be if the provider did not have the ability to receive the station's signal at the head end or other point of presence.

For cable that means that a provider MUST establish a POPs for receiving local stations sufficient to cover the communities they serve. If they are a 20-60 mile stretched system and receiving those stations requires multiple POPs so be it. For satellite the same rule applies ... a 100% carriage requirement with milestones toward meeting that requirement. Perhaps with a fine of $1 per month per customer who does not receive all stations Grade B to the customer's location unless progress toward providing all locals is demonstrated.

I'm pretty sure my nightmare won't come true because many stations will balk at the idea of not being able to charge for the re-use of their signals (even simple delivery to viewers who should already receive the signals OTA) and providers will balk at 100% must carry - especially if digital subchannels are involved.

BTW: There is always room for a waiver process, where providers can show the technical obstacles to meeting the requirements and beg forgiveness from the FCC.

The rules are so different for cable vs satellite now that we practically need a clean slate. No more requiring satellite to "must carry" every non-LP station in a market while only requiring cable to carry a number of locals based on their capacity. No more requiring cable to carry Grade B signals while prohibiting satellite from carrying a Grade B just because the customer is outside a defined market (and never applied for SV status because they never needed it). Level the playing field so satellite can carry what cable carries ... that in itself would be a good start.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> HR 2821 has yet to be transcribed, but it is most likely the bill sponsored by Ross, Boren and Cubin.


It is. A status search reveals the sponsor and two co-sponsors.
6/21/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.​


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> The difference is in the POV. My contention is that local television stations were granted free spectrum in exchange for serving the local community.


And those local stations do serve the local community. Funny part is that they serve the local community all by themselves; there is no need to be on cable or satellite. Most customers to a multichannel system would expect their bills to be lessened quite a bit if local channels weren't on the system.

Sure, it is about point-of-view. But there is absolutely no way the fee-for-carriage terms will ever be rolled back in the law.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg,

I am not arguing that that will happen. I am saying it SHOULD.

As to local stations serving a community all by themselves, that is not true. At least not for the ENTIRE community. Let's not forget that the reason for cable's existance in the first place was to provide a clean, consitant signal for OTA channels that could not otherwise serve areas of the community they were licensed to serve. Anyone who lives in a community that is not flat as pancake has areas where local channels cannot reach all by themselves.

How many newspapers charge the paper boy to deliver the paper?

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> How many newspapers charge the paper boy to deliver the paper?


Some do ... the delivery people buy the papers in bulk and sell them to their customers. The delivery people make money on the markup. Some newspapers have paid delivery people, but Congress managed to write it into the law that TV stations _cannot_ pay a satellite carrier for carriage or channel placement. The station _can_ pay to get their signal to the satellite carrier's POP (generally done via the OTA signal, but if the station wants a clearer signal or alternate path they _can_ pay for it) much like newspapers pay staff to take newspapers to distribution points for the carriers to pick up (so they don't all have to go to the press for their papers). Some newspapers will even drop bulk papers on the carrier's doorsteps.

Yes, *C*ommunity *A*ntenna *T*ele*V*ision is nearly forgotten. Thanks for keeping it alive.


----------



## arkieboy (Nov 8, 2005)

Information is now becoming available on that bill introduced last week, H.R. 2821

Let me encourage everyone...but ESPECIALLY if you have representative on one of the committees who will be hearing the bill, to contact them and express your desire they vote FOR this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2821


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Thanks for the link ...
TNGTony's link above also now works for those wanting to read the full text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2821:

It seems to be a simple bill adding 'or adjacent market' after 'into the local market' in many locations so the rules applying to in market stations extend to adjacent market stations. I have not done a full study to see if it creates any new pitfalls.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Changes suggested by HR 2821 to the three sections of US Code as well as the pre-existing code (to put it in context) is available on my website:
http://jameslong.name/hr2821.html

Notes:
* Stations will fall under 122 if they are being broadcast to the station's adjacent market and that market gets it's own locals (no adjacent market stations until you have your own).

* The definition is read from the perspective of the station, not the subscriber (that helps with my confusion). It allows the STATION to be broadcast into any market that is at least partially within the same state as the station's market.
Which means - Indianapolis Indiana stations can be broadcast into any market partially within Indiana ... which includes all of the Chicago and Grand Rapids Markets in my area (the definition does not divide the market by state line).
It should also means that since the Chicago market is located in Indiana then it would be legal to rebroadcast Chicago signals into any adjacent market (such as South Bend) including the Michigan counties of the South Bend market.

Messy and overly broad ... perhaps on rewrite it will be better. The definition of "adjacent market" needs help.
There were also a couple of typos in the bill that need to be fixed.

* No permission is required? They added adjacent market coverage as an exception to requiring consent!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> Some do ... the delivery people buy the papers in bulk and sell them to their customers. The delivery people make money on the markup. Some newspapers have paid delivery people, but Congress managed to write it into the law that TV stations _cannot_ pay a satellite carrier for carriage or channel placement. The station _can_ pay to get their signal to the satellite carrier's POP (generally done via the OTA signal, but if the station wants a clearer signal or alternate path they _can_ pay for it) much like newspapers pay staff to take newspapers to distribution points for the carriers to pick up (so they don't all have to go to the press for their papers). Some newspapers will even drop bulk papers on the carrier's doorsteps.
> 
> Yes, *C*ommunity *A*ntenna *T*ele*V*ision is nearly forgotten. Thanks for keeping it alive.


Actually when I was a paper boy all those years ago this is how it worked. Once a week we'd have to pay for the papers we delivered the past week out of the money we collected from our customers. And if you didn't do your job very well that week and didn't collect enough from your customers to cover the bill, too bad you still owed that money and it came out of your own pocket, or more likey you went and begged your parents for the money promising them that you'd go out that evening and collect payments from all your customers so you could pay them back. So the answer is YES the newspaper does charge the paper boy to deliver the paper!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

So does this bill really mean that Dish would be allowed (not required) to offer channels that are in DMA's adjacent to yours? Or is it more specific in saying that this would be for people who live in a DMA that's based in neighboring state (for example Wayne county in Indiana is in Dayton, OH's DMA) would be allowed to get channels from the state they live in?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Because this is 17 USC 122, I think that the retransmission consent and must-carry rules apply. In this case, if you receive your own local channels and want the stations from an adjacent market, you can get them, provided your satellite company wants to sell them to you. However, that also requires the satellite company to pay under existing contracts with stations any carriage fees due.

Therefore, simply taking the state of Maryland, those of us with either DC or Baltimore stations can now get the other market, provided the satellite company pays each station for carriage under contract. I am guessing the satellite companies could add another charge if you want locals from an adjacent market. And the satellite companies could choose not to implement adjacent market locals.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

If something like this does go through and Dish is allowed to offer adjacent DMA's that could be quite interesting. For example the DMA I live in, Indianapolis is adjacent to DMA's from Chicago, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Dayton, Cincinati, Louisville and Terre Haute. And there might be one or two others that I can't think of off the top of head (now that I say that I remember there's also Lafayette, but that doesn't really count as DMA, no matter what Nielsen says! :lol: ) So does that mean Dish could offer me locals from all those DMA's if they so choose? Now honesly if it just allowed me to get locals also from Fort Wayne i'd be happy. I live as close to the Fort Wayne towers (closer in some cases) as the Indy towers and all my neighbors with cable and OTA antenna's get locals from both cities. So i'm all for anything that would allow that to happen!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Nevermind. I read James' revision, and yes, a local channel has no say if they are retransmitted into an adjacent market.

Wow. I wonder if this will pass.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Nevermind. I read James' revision, and yes, a local channel has no say if they are retransmitted into an adjacent market.
> 
> Wow. I wonder if this will pass.


Since there is no retransmission consent by stations (which was written into the "SV" legislation a couple of years ago) and no protection of local broadcasters (other than the market's locals must be offered before offering an adjacent market's locals) I would not expect it to pass.

Give the stations the right to refuse carriage and it might pass.
Give stations the right to block other station's carriage and will be moot. 

*Here's Chicago:*








The green area is the Chicago market. Normal LIL rules of must carry and consent to carry. A Chicago area station could refuse carriage or force carriage in this area.

The yellow areas are "adjacent markets" as defined. If E* or D* wanted to they could provide any Chicago station to any subscriber anywhere within any of the yellow counties - without the permission of the station being carried. (The exception would be markets without their own locals, such as Lafayette. They get no benefit until E* or D* uplinks their local stations.)

The red area is troubling to me ... an area so close to Chicago does not meet the new definition of adjacent market because the markets do not cross state lines. If the definition is changed to define adjacent markets without requiring a county to be in another state it will help viewers in Kenosha.

It seems odd for a viewer in Southern Indiana to be able to get Chicago locals while Kenosha was excluded.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Does this mean that all of us in Utah will be getting stations from Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona? Our DMA includes pieces of all those states.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If passed as written it would give the satellite broadcasters the right to provide those adjacent market stations. What they actually choose to provide is not mandated.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

This would be great for Albuquerque TV Viewers will now have the chances to see other TV markets like, El Paso, Lubbock, Amerillio, Colorado Springs, Denver, Tucson, Phoenix, Salt Lake City.

I think it's about time!! :listenup: :icon_bb: 

It will be fun to watch out of town local news and live local sports for everyones to see!! 

I will keep the eyes on any latest news on the proposed law.

6-26-07


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Does this mean that all of us in Utah will be getting stations from Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona? Our DMA includes pieces of all those states.


I could be wrong, but...

If one lives in Utah, one is in the Salt Lake City market. There is no other market in Utah. Therefore, Utah will not receive any help from this bill.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Well I looked at my Albuquerque's DMA map covereges, and it's looks like I might just get 2 different TV markets, one is in El Paso and Lubbock, TX however on the other hand Albuquerque's DMA spills over into AZ, and CO then I might get Phoenix, Colorado Spring and Montrose maybe even Denver. 

Is that logical to you? Well I hope so.....:hurah:  

Now back to my TV DXing.......:coolglass 

6-26-07


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I could be wrong, but...
> 
> If one lives in Utah, one is in the Salt Lake City market. There is no other market in Utah. Therefore, Utah will not receive any help from this bill.


It depends on how weird the reading is ...

The adjacent markets are the markets in the same state as the market. The Salt Lake City market is in Utah, but it is also in Nevada and Wyoming. Adjacent markets in Nevada and Wyoming are adjacent to Salt Lake City. (Las Vegas, Reno/Carson City, Idaho Falls, Casper and Denver.)

The definition does not specify portions of the market (it does not say the adjacent market is adjacent to the _portion_ of the market in the same state as the adjacent market) so read it _the right way_ and anyone in the Salt Lake City market could get any local from any of the markets listed above (including Nevada customers receiving Denver locals and Wyoming customers getting Las Vegas locals).

Yes, the definition needs work.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Just what I was getting at.

We already have Cedar City/St. George as "significantly viewed", even though it would take a football-stadium sized antenna on a ten-thousand foot tower, to actually get them OTA in SLC.

This may get as bad as the "rim shot" FM stations, where they get a barely-audible signal to some spot in the valley (via strange, out of the way transmitter sites in the middle of nowhere), then declare themselves eligible for booster transmitters right in the big city. Not a single FM channel is vacant in this market, yet there are copies of the same "stations" up and down the band. And, the intermod is unbearable.


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

If you live in an area that is part of a DMA that originates in a different state, then you could get your own state networks under this bill.

In my DMA here in North Arkansas, we are in the Springfield, MO DMA, this bill would allow me to see Arkansas news, sports and weather. 

Those living on the Missouri side of the Springfield DMA would have no changes. This only affects those on the other side of the state line from the city in which the DMA originates.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shad said:


> This only affects those on the other side of the state line from the city in which the DMA originates.


That seems to be the _intent_ based on the press release, but the definition of "adjacent market" is open enough to allow anyone in the market to view any station in an adjacent market as long as part of each market is in the same state.


----------



## HuggieBear (Nov 17, 2006)

How would this here law affect ME? I am in an area in which Dish offers NOTHING in the way of locals at all. 

http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Alexandria.gif


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You MUST have your own market's locals before a provider can provide you with adjacent market locals. Sorry, but this bill doesn't help you (yet).


----------



## HuggieBear (Nov 17, 2006)

James Long said:


> You MUST have your own market's locals before a provider can provide you with adjacent market locals. Sorry, but this bill doesn't help you (yet).


:crying: :crying: awe shucks I am left out in the cold yet again  

Thanks for the quick response and info.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Shad said:


> If you live in an area that is part of a DMA that originates in a different state, then you could get your own state networks under this bill.
> 
> In my DMA here in North Arkansas, we are in the Springfield, MO DMA, this bill would allow me to see Arkansas news, sports and weather.
> 
> Those living on the Missouri side of the Springfield DMA would have no changes. This only affects those on the other side of the state line from the city in which the DMA originates.


Actually...Springfield has one station that originates from AR, KWBM. This might well open up Springfield to other locals from MO and AR. (its a technicality I know..but you know where I'm going with this)

DMAs become a real problem, especially in Missouri.

For example:

Kansas City has stations licensed to BOTH KC-Missouri and KC-Kansas. That is a real problem, since Kansas City *is* a city in both states!

St. Louis has stations licensed to St. Louis, MO and East St. Louis, IL

Springfield does have KWBM which originates from Harrison AR.

Paducah/Cape Gireardau is a weird market since it has 2 cities in its market in different states!

Joplin/Pittsburg Kansas is another problem. The Joplin market is legally both Pittsburg and Joplin. (one in KS the other in MO) With Joplin/Pittsburg, how do you decide who gets what?

Scottsbluff, NE is another real problem child, since that market is technically Cheyenne WY-Scottsbluff NE (and Western Nebraska viewers are in a different time zone than the rest of NE)

Then do want to discuss Grand Island/Kearney/Hastings? That's a large market geographically that has *3* cities of license and a couple of counties in KS as I recall.

Denver is also a nightmare because of the number of states you can get Denver Locals in. I think its what, 4 or 5?

We also run into the issue of Spot Beams and size. If you could technically get any Missouri locals in say Springfield...you'd have a real problem since there are 7 markets bordering it. (KC, St. Louis, JeffCity/Columbia, Northwest AR, Little Rock, Bootheel, and Joplin)

If I could get (legally) KC locals and St. Louis ones in Springfield, I'd have both. (and the SGF locals woudl still get the passing interest they do now)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Under HR 2821 it does not matter what state the station is in, it matters what market the station is in. The biggest problems come with defining what state a market is in (if a market crosses state lines is it considered a market in both states - I say yes) and the odd wording that only counts a market as adjacent if a portion of the market is in the "same state" as the other market. If neither market crosses into the other market's state (Chicago and Milwaukee, for example, illustrated previously) they are NOT adjacent but the furthest reaches of the Indianapolis market ARE adjacent.


----------



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

so lets recap here. Looks to me that this bill will allow satellite companies to give you your next door neighbor DMA wise IF the market is in your state?

So for me Living in Clay county, Illinois in the STL market (the big stub on the east side that looks like a mole) I'd be able to get Springfield/Decatur/Champaign locals, Evansville Indiana Locals, the Paducah, KY locals, and the Terre Haute locals. Am I correct on that?


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

Terry K said:


> Actually...Springfield has one station that originates from AR, KWBM. This might well open up Springfield to other locals from MO and AR. (its a technicality I know..but you know where I'm going with this)
> 
> Springfield does have KWBM which originates from Harrison AR.


KWBM's office is in Hollister, MO. Their transmitter is across the state line in extreme northern Arkansas, about 20 miles north of Harrison. They have absolutely no presence in Harrison at all.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

will Phoenix get Tucson and vice versa?


----------



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

machavez00 said:


> will Phoenix get Tucson and vice versa?


The way I'm reading it, yes. also since a small bit of the Albuquerque, NM market goes into Apache county You would possibly get that as well.


----------



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

machavez00 said:


> will Phoenix get Tucson and vice versa?


The way I'm reading it, yes. also since a small bit of the Albuquerque, NM market goes into Apache county You would possibly get that as well.

Tucson would only get Phoenix, as Yuma locals are not on dish network yet. I don't know about Directv however.


----------



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

also upon reading the DMA map, I here would also be able get the Qunicy, IL DMA as well should dish provide them to me.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Of course my dream here is that if this does pass (yeah I know it's unlikely to get that far let alone anything else, but it's my dream soooooo......) that Dish would/could start selling a "regional net package" where they'd sell you a package that included all the nets in your neighboring DMA's for an extra $5 to $10 dollars a month. Yeah I know there's a million reasons why it'll never happen (and the NAB knows them all and will shout them loudly and repeatedly at congress) but wouldn't it be nice.....


----------



## jhamps10 (Sep 27, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> Of course my dream here is that if this does pass (yeah I know it's unlikely to get that far let alone anything else, but it's my dream soooooo......) that Dish would/could start selling a "regional net package" where they'd sell you a package that included all the nets in your neighboring DMA's for an extra $5 to $10 dollars a month. Yeah I know there's a million reasons why it'll never happen (and the NAB knows them all and will shout them loudly and repeatedly at congress) but wouldn't it be nice.....


I personally think it has a chance to pass, as it has gained 4 addional co-sponsors of the bill to add with the original 2. but it is a long shot still. also I don't think it would cost extra money to get them, but that's up to dish and direct of course.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Hello Jhamps10,

I just wanted to make sure this is if that's true Albuquerque TV viewers will for the first time that we may get out of town TV stations from El Paso, Denver or Colorado Spring, Tucson and Phonix and some other citys?

I like to hear your inputs, and put my wondering mind to rest. 

Thanks!!!

7-7-07


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*IF*
1) another market adjoins (borders) your market,
2) a portion of your market and the adjoining market are in the same state,
3) your market has it's own locals available, and
4) this law passes without changing the above or adding more restrictions
_THEN_
Satellite providers will be _permitted_ (not required) to deliver stations to you from the adjoining market.

Albuquerque ...
This market borders Phoenix AZ, Amarillo TX, El Paso TX, Midland TX, Denver CO and has a portion of the Albuquerque market in the same state as a portion of those markets. A satellite/cable provider _could_ deliver any channel from any of those markets to any subscriber in the Albuquerque market IF this bill passes.

This market also borders Salt Lake City UT, Tucson AZ, Colorado Springs CO and Lubbock TX. No portion of the Albuquerque market is in the same state as Salt Lake City or Lubbock markets ... you could live a mile from these two markets in the Albuquerque market and this bill will not help you. By definition I believe that Tuscon and Colorado Springs WOULD be included, since part of the Albuquerque is in Arizona and Colorado respectively, even though Albuquerque does not border those markets in the same state. (The border is the state line, not a line in the same state.)


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Well if that's the case, I will be a happy camper for that citys that I am interested are..... Denver, El Paso and Phoenix since that they are a bigger matket and has more local news and any live local sports coverges.

Other small markets are a nice bonus too.

BTW, What is proposed bill number, so that I can write to my congress critters? 

Thank!! 

7-7-07


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Never mind I found the proposed bill number......... 

7-7-07


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

N5XZS said:


> Never mind I found the proposed bill number.........


Really? Is it somewhere obvious like the thread title? :lol:


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

Shad said:


> KWBM's office is in Hollister, MO. Their transmitter is across the state line in extreme northern Arkansas, about 20 miles north of Harrison. They have absolutely no presence in Harrison at all.


KWBM is licensed to Harrison, AR. Therefore, its technically and legally an Arkansas Station.


----------



## CapeFish (Jun 8, 2004)

So what would this mean for the Tallahassee-Thomasville market? Would Jacksonville & Tampa locals be allowed for delivery to us here on the Florida side under this proposal?


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Does this mean that all of us in Utah will be getting stations from Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona? Our DMA includes pieces of all those states.


BTW, if find it bizarre that your DMA continues to somehow include half of Nevada. I can't figure out the logic in legally forcing satellite customers in rural Nevada into a 6pm primetime by sticking it in a DMA in a different timezone. This particular legislation might have some wacky consequences, and as much as you'd hate losing some viewers, would you agree that sort of legislative fix would be helpful for the extreme cases?


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

Would this bill help me get stations from the Sioux City market? I live in Lyon, Co. IA seen here in my DMA: http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Sioux Falls.gif

Sioux City DMA here: http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Sioux_City.gif


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Any latest news on H.R. 2821 proposed bill? Just hoping it would move a little faster......:hurah: 

7-23-07


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is now up to 12 co-sponsors, but so far no real action.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

If by some miracle this does go through would this trump the ruling against Dish not allowing them to deliver signifigantly viewed signals? Or would Dish not be allowed to offer these adjacent markets because they're not allowed to offer distant signals?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

This makes the current SV language moot (although what happens when two sections of code offer competing rules for the same service is a job for lawyers).

H.R. 2821 is a change to the locals legislation, not the distants legislation. E* will be able to take full advantage of this if it passes.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Don't forget Directv too..... 

7-24-07


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> This makes the current SV language moot (although what happens when two sections of code offer competing rules for the same service is a job for lawyers).
> 
> H.R. 2821 is a change to the locals legislation, not the distants legislation. E* will be able to take full advantage of this if it passes.


That's what I thought, but it's good to have confirmation from someone more knowlegeable on the subject than me!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

N5XZS said:


> Don't forget Directv too.....
> 
> 7-24-07


Well I was sure this would benefit Directv since they don't have that judgement against them that Dish does regarding distant signals. As James confirmed above though this would be win-win for all satellite customers! :hurah:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The benefit to D* (as well as E*) is that these proposed rules are looser than the current SV rules. It isn't just prenamed counties and areas where the stations have proven significant viewership. In it's current form E* and D* don't even have to ask permission from these out of market stations.

I like it ... but I don't believe it will pass in it's current form. In some ways it is to broad and in other ways (see the Chicago map on the first page of this thread) it isn't broad enough. Fix it and it might just pass.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Want to talk about wacky DMA's? The Huntsville Alabama DMA covers one county in Tennessee, Lincoln. All Tennessee counties adjacent to Lincoln are in the Nashville, TN DMA. That means I have to watch Alabama political advertising and debates and car ads, talk about cruel and unusual punishment.:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Also Nashville TN DMA has HD locals Huntsville DMA does not.


----------



## dphil9833 (Jul 6, 2007)

Well even though this bill is in it's infant beginnings, I fired off a message to my representative urging his support when the time comes. For whatever thats worth, but I'll keep hoping!


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

You can check the status of this bill, vote for or against the bill, and leave comments about this bill here,

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_2821.html

Who knows, maybe some in congress will see the overwhelming support it has to pass.........


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Status is also available directly from the government (although I'm glad to see the Washington Watch coverage).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02821:@@@L&summ2=m&

Now with 14 cosponsors but no action in either committee (yet).


----------



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

I just wonder how' it'll cover HD.
If your local DMA doesn't have HD via DBS but has the adjacent DMA will you get the adjacent in HD or will it be like SV locals is now where you have to have your local DMA D* and E*


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Just remember, the bill "allows" the carrying of some adjacent DMA's, Directv doesn't even currently carry the SV channels that they are allowed under the current law. What makes anyone think they will do anything different, even if this bill passes?


----------



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

leww37334 said:


> Just remember, the bill "allows" the carrying of some adjacent DMA's, Directv doesn't even currently carry the SV channels that they are allowed under the current law. What makes anyone think they will do anything different, even if this bill passes?


actually they do

it's not many areas but they do carry SV channels in some areas
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packProg/svLocalChannels.jsp?assetId=1200076


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> Just remember, the bill "allows" the carrying of some adjacent DMA's, Directv doesn't even currently carry the SV channels that they are allowed under the current law. What makes anyone think they will do anything different, even if this bill passes?


It makes sense to me to have to option there and available rather than not have it at all......:grin:


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

ARKDTVfan said:


> actually they do
> 
> it's not many areas but they do carry SV channels in some areas
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packProg/svLocalChannels.jsp?assetId=1200076


actually I haven't seen anyone on this site say that SV channels are available to them through Directv.

here's the thread with most of the discussion;

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=78944&highlight=significantly+viewed

And yes, I agree the legislation should pass, I am just saying Directv viewers should not get their hopes up. I sent a letter to my representative in support of it and went to Washington Watch and voted for it.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

I was doing some research and I found a other next door TV station in Clovis, New Mexico called KVIH which is a high powered relay station, feediing in from Amarillo, TX on the Wikipedia's website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVII-TV

One market added to list, that might some day that Albuquerque TV viewers can get to see!

Now back to TV DXing.....

8-12-07


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Any more latest news on H.R. 2821 and any other new bills?

9-15-07


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Still sitting in committee ... 15 co-sponsors but no real activity.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Good news co-sponsers now went up to 16! 

I hope it's get better....

9-18-07


----------



## jtalberts (Oct 30, 2006)

I would actually like to pick up the locals from the Pittsburgh DMA because I don't have locals and if they do come online I will only get 2 freaking stations. I live 5 minutes from the border of PA and I could get the Pittsburgh locals if I actually lived 10 miles more east. I hope that this would let me choose the Pittsburgh DMA.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

I am pretty sure that this bill requires the local channels be carried BEFORE any adjacent market channels can be carried. At least that is the way the current rule is.

See ya
Tony


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Good news cosponsors is now up to 17!!! Every bit it's helps, keep it up folks!!!:goodjob: 

10-27-07


----------



## cweave02 (Oct 12, 2007)

I just ordered my DTV service yesterday (to be installed tomorrow), and since I live in Georgia, asked if I could get the Atlanta market as my "local." Since I live on the border, I was told 'no' and that I had to get the Greenville - Spartanburg-Asheville local stations. I was told to call customer service after the activation and ask them to ask the FCC for a waiver.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

cweave02 said:



> I just ordered my DTV service yesterday (to be installed tomorrow), and since I live in Georgia, asked if I could get the Atlanta market as my "local." Since I live on the border, I was told 'no' and that I had to get the Greenville - Spartanburg-Asheville local stations. I was told to call customer service after the activation and ask them to ask the FCC for a waiver.


The CSR didn't really help you. A waiver, if it were granted, would get you New York and LA stations in SD or New York only in HD. No Atlanta.

You have two other options: Install a large outdoor antenna and see if you have any luck with Atlanta over the air. Or find on old, used Dish network receiver and dish and sign up for All American direct. If you are granted a waiver, you'll get the Atlanta stations.


----------



## cweave02 (Oct 12, 2007)

Thanks Guy - I am going to keep my local cable, which gets three of the ATL stations, but not the one I really want - WSB.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

If you really want WSB, take the suggestion to attempt the distant network route (see https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/ ) with an old Dish receiver and dish is a good choice. You'd get both Atlanta and San Francisco if successful.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

phrelin said:


> If you really want WSB, take the suggestion to attempt the distant network route.


So I entered zip code 30635 into www.antennaweb.org It stated that there are no stations predicted to serve this location. If this is true for your address, the waivers for Atlanta would be automatic with no approval from the Asheville stations required.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Tower Guy said:


> So I entered zip code 30635 into www.antennaweb.org It stated that there are no stations predicted to serve this location. If this is true for your address, the waivers for Atlanta would be automatic with no approval from the Asheville stations required.


Not true. You need to enter the address at http://directvdnseligibility.decisionmark.com/app/addressform.aspx This says for 30635 that you are not eligible for DNS because you receive DirecTV SD and HD locals in your area.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

texasbrit said:


> Not true. You need to enter the address at http://directvdnseligibility.decisionmark.com/app/addressform.aspx This says for 30635 that you are not eligible for DNS because you receive DirecTV SD and HD locals in your area.


I was referring to DNS availability for All American Direct, not DirecTV.


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Cosponsers now up to 18!! Just plugging on baby!!! Sooner the day comes that we all can enjoy next door TV makets in you areas!!


12-19-07


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

N5XZS said:


> Cosponsers now up to 18!! Just plugging on baby!!! Sooner the day comes that we all can enjoy next door TV makets in you areas!!
> 
> 12-19-07


So realistically how many co-sponsors does it take before we can expect anything to really happen?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Let's talk a bit of reality, then.

The last two Satellite Home Viewer bills were signed as part of the larger, omnibus packages sent to the Presidents. Therefore, the television pieces that gave us local-into-local and then significantly-viewed and HD local and distant were all part of US Government budget legislation.

In both cases, they were passed by the House and then the Senate.

I don't think that can happen, here. Has anyone seen a bill in the Senate that even resembles this bill in the House? If not, I'd be rather surprised if anything is done within the next six months.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The last two satellite bills were facing a precise deadline. If they had not been passed the previous laws would have expired. The effect of a deadline gave the opening for tweaking the content more than just changing the expiration date.

There is no deadline on H.R. (House Resolution) 2821. While I'd like to see it progress there is no pressure to do so ... the bill is likely to die unless there is a serious reason to wake it up. One reason to revisit these issues is the conversion of broadcast to digital in 2009. Perhaps when Congress steps in to make needed tweaks before THAT deadline the changes suggested here can be rolled in.

The prior satellite bills started off as independent bills prior to being rolled in to the omnibus packages. Everything has to start somewhere.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Right. But my main point is that unless there is similar legislation in the Senate, there is no chance of this happening anytime soon. Just because it could be passed by the House doesn't mean the Senate is even looking at it.

Keep in mind that one of the main reasons for this bill is to have people in the same state have available to them the local channels that originate in that state. That helps politicians out, such as Dan Boren, whose district contains the part of Oklahoma that receives only Fort Smith, Arkansas local channels. And you'd think some in the Senate would love to see it that way.

So, if we see work on a similar bill as HR 2821 in the Senate, then we know there is a possibility for legislation to be finalized. Until then, this is only a dream.


----------



## rsforkner (Dec 31, 2007)

I find this discussion very interesting. However I am a complete novice in trying to understand all of the legal issues involved. So I will add my .02 from a very simple minded view.

In Boynton Beach, FL Comcast delivers all of the West Palm Beach AND Miami local channels. With Direct TV, I am limited to West Palm Beach ONLY. My daughter subscribes to Comcast and Dish just so they can get the Miami locals.

Regardless of legal issues and permissions to retransmit signals, this just doesn't seem right. Period! Something is wrong with the laws. Period!

Thanks for listening,
Bob


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

The actual difference is "the law" and "the interpretation of the law", as done by the courts.

There isn't any copyright infringement by the cable companies, because the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that redistributing a terrestrial signal is not a copyright violation. However, there is still the need to have a carriage agreement with the terrestrial broadcasters in order to redistribute OTA signals. The FCC is responsible for administering which local channels are allowed on a given cable system.

The rules for satellite differ because there is definitely copyright issues. That is why the legal issues are different.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

rsforkner said:


> In Boynton Beach, FL Comcast delivers all of the West Palm Beach AND Miami local channels. With Direct TV, I am limited to West Palm Beach ONLY.
> 
> Regardless of legal issues and permissions to retransmit signals, this just doesn't seem right. Period! Something is wrong with the laws. Period!
> 
> ...


It's not the laws. Exclamation point!

DirecTV has the legal right to deliver any station that is considered significantly viewed in your county. For some reason DirecTV has chosen not to deliver Miami stations to you.

Here's the significantly viewed list for Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County:

WPTV, 5, West Palm Beach, FL
WPEC, 12, West Palm Beach, FL (formerly WEAT)
+WFLX, 29, West Palm Beach, FL
WFOR-TV, 4, Miami, FL (formerly WTVJ)
WSVN, 7, Miami, FL (formerly WCKT)
WPLG, 10, Miami, FL
+WBFS-TV, 33, Miami, FL

The entire nationwide list is here: 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A2.pdf


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I have seen this happen several times :
I am in the Huntsville DMA, local cable provides both Huntsville and Nashville stations, Directv only provides Huntsville. 


Brother is in Evansville Ind DMA, local cable provides Evansville and Nashville stations. I would really like to see a post from anyone here who is receiving a station from Directv that is outside their DMA.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

There are a few areas, such as the NY Metro/Tri-state area, as well as in North Carolina. I'm still trying to figure out why it is only on such a limited basis.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It doesn't make much sense for a provider to throw away an advantage like that. When E* was allowed to have SVs there were holes, but they seemed to be trying to implement the process.

Allowing cable to be the only source of out of DMA TV is odd. A problem with spotbeam size or negotiating with stations to be the only affiliate carried in their DMA would eliminate SOME stations from being carried as SVs, but there should be more than a few.


----------



## pratttech (Jan 13, 2008)

The DMA maps are very weird. Though I live in MA, I'm stuck in RI DMA as Bristol is the only MA county so maligned. Looking at the maps there are other areas of MA and NH that are far much further than I am from Boston included in the Boston DMA. I get most of Boston already OTA, but would like the cleaner satellite signal and all of this DMA. I'm only 35 miles from Boston but can't get these channels on my DirecTV service, while someone in Concord, NH can? Makes no sense...


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Is their any news on this guys?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nope. No update since last August.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

The co-sponsor list on HR 2821 has inched up to 20. I don't know if that means there is still interest in the bill on Capitol Hill. I had such high hopes when this resolution was introduced in June 2007. Now, more than a year later, it looks like it's going nowhere.

We're living in a world where it's now techologically simple for broacasters to provide us with whichever TV stations we want to watch. But due to these moronic DMAs established by the federal government, many of us will never be able to enjoy televised news, weather and sports coverage from the states in which we live.

Go figure!


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

Well that's a good news, since it's went up to 20 co-sponsors!

Keep it up baby!!:joy: :goodjob:

In the meantime, try the out of town local news feeds link.........

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

7-12-08


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Has anyone from texas signed on to this bill yet? I have contacted my reps but no solid answers.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

jclewter79 said:


> Has anyone from texas signed on to this bill yet? I have contacted my reps but no solid answers.


Try the link I posted below. It lists each of the co-sponsors, as well as other pertinent information about the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2821


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Still just 20 co sponsors. I hope we see some life out of this bill. Soon.


----------

