# PBS HD Locals in February?



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

This topic has been discussed before. But, with Feb. 17 looming closer, it might be timely to bring it up again.

according to a recent article: “Dish now has ..local HD available in 152 markets”

However, it is the only major provider not carrying PBS locals in HD.

according to the FCC agreement: 
by Feb. 17, 2010, DirecTV and Dish Network need to provide full HD carriage in 15% of their HD markets.”…”The benchmark jumps to 30% in the second year, 60% in the third and 100% in the fourth.”

152x15%= at least 22 markets where Dish will be required to carry all HD stations (including PBS locals if those markets have them) by Feb. 17, 2010. But, which markets?

Will they go for the top markets? or "eastern arc" markets? or have they already qualified by counting smaller markets with just a few stations, plus Alaska where they are already required to carry all HD locals?

Many viewers can not get locals over the air. In Los Angeles, for example, a lot of people (including me) live in canyons and have no reception.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

They'll go for the markets where they already have all the available HD channels.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Since they have an extra HD capacity in the major cities that would probably be the first place we'll see PBS HD. I'd sure love to see it in Chicago. I'm tired of having the sides of the picture lopped off because they broadcast the center of a 16:9 feed.


----------



## MrDad0330 (Jun 16, 2007)

I personally gave up on waiting for PBS-HD in the Harrisburg-York-Lanc market and hooked up my "in the attic" antenna which i used for my FM tuner and I now get WITF ch 33 fine in HD but id rather see it on "D"


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

They'll likely turn up the channels in the markets that they manage to strike the most attractive (to DISH Network) agreements with. If your market's station is holding out for a "better deal", it won't get carriage. It is entirely possible that the stations that have the least to offer will be the ones that are carried.

Note that I don't consider this DISH's fault. It is the fault of the regulation apparently not requiring a certain minimum number of eyeballs as part of the mandate.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

It seemed that during recent congressional hearing over passing the Satellite Home Viewers Act renewal that DISH wanted to wait until 2012 or later to start any roll out. Congress was not pleased. I know the 15% roll out rule was in affect before the recent passage of the legislation, but I am not sure if it survived afterwards. Someone can post to see if there are still requirements fro roll out of PBS stations in HD on satellite.

If DISH decides to uplink PBS station in HD come Febriary, then they would start with New York (WNET), Los Angeles (KCET), Chicago (WTTW), Houston (KUHT), Boston (WGBH), Philadelphia (WHYY), Dallas (KERA), San Francisco (KQED), Washington (WETA), Atlanta (WPBA), Seattle (KCTS) and maybe Denver (KRMA). These are the largest markets (except Denver) and the source for most of the PBS programming (again, except Denver). I mention Denver because DISH's headquarters are in Denver and the uplink center is in Cheyenne. Also, the above stations represent key regions of the country (Denver the Rocky Mountain area). I doubt that secondary PBS stations would get uplinked like KBDI in Denver, WLIW (Long Island), etc. For me, I would accept the national feed just so I do not have to put up with "center cut".


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

nmetro said:


> For me, I would accept the national feed just so I do not have to put up with "center cut".


Ditto. The national feed would be just fine.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The problem with major markets is the language of the rule: "by Feb. 17, 2010, DirecTV and Dish Network need to provide full HD carriage in 15% of their HD markets."

In San Francisco the PBS station KQED by itself wouldn't meet the requirement as there are other HD stations not yet uplinked. Stations like KBCW, The CW affiliate, owned by CBS Corporation which plans on nailing Dish, Direct, Comcast, etc., for carriage fees for KPIX, the CBS affiliate, get complicated. You can bet there'll be no negotiations for KBCW HD until the contract for KPIX comes up. So KQED is worthless in meeting the FCC requirements.

On the other hand, it's my understanding that many PBS stations have been bargaining with Dish as a group. So maybe if they have to add some PBS stations, they'll add them all.

Or maybe...?

PBS has already said "absolutely not" with regard to the national feed.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

phrelin said:


> PBS has already said "absolutely not" with regard to the national feed.


I suspect that PBS is as hungry for revenue from the torturous pledge drives as commercial over the air stations. The national feed would be nice in Denver, because they have pledge drives at least a week out of every month. Sometimes these pledge drives go on for two or three weeks (March and August are especially bad); June they have a two week auction. This weekend they had a two day pledge drive to start the year.

I stopped giving to PBS because the programs I "can only find on PBS" aired so infrequently, due to the pledge drives. Not only that, PBS used to fill an entire half hour or hour with programming, now their shows run for 25 minutes or 50 minutes; filling the rest of the time with promos and pledge requests. So, the only time I watch PBS is when something is really good on, and I would like to see the whole picture and not have it cut off. Fortunately, History Channel, History International and Discovery Networks fill much of the void. YEs, there are commercials, but they are expected and the shows are not pre-empted weeks at a time to see a "Peter, Paul and Mary" concert from 20 years ago or what amounts to informercials for starting one's business, self help, learn the piano, etc. disguised as programming.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

nmetro said:


> I suspect that PBS is as hungry for revenue from the torturous pledge drives as commercial over the air stations. The national feed would be nice in Denver, because they have pledge drives at least a week out of every month. Sometimes these pledge drives go on for two or three weeks (March and August are especially bad); June they have a two week auction. This weekend they had a two day pledge drive to start the year.
> 
> I stopped giving to PBS because the programs I "can only find on PBS" aired so infrequently, due to the pledge drives. Not only that, PBS used to fill an entire half hour or hour with programming, now their shows run for 25 minutes or 50 minutes; filling the rest of the time with promos and pledge requests. So, the only time I watch PBS is when something is really good on, and I would like to see the whole picture and not have it cut off. Fortunately, History Channel, History International and Discovery Networks fill much of the void. YEs, there are commercials, but they are expected and the shows are not pre-empted weeks at a time to see a "Peter, Paul and Mary" concert from 20 years ago or what amounts to informercials for starting one's business, self help, learn the piano, etc. disguised as programming.


I rarely watch PBS, however I do watch Nat. Geo, History, Bio, DOC etc. all the time. These commercial cable networks have outdone PBS in programming areas that were previously PBS's specialty. If PBS were to become another commercial network they could stop with those annoying pledge drives and get back to producing quality programming.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I don't know how many PBS viewers have noticed the gradual increase in prominence of corporate sponsorship of PBS programming compared to 1960. That reached the point where (from Wikipedia):


> In July 2009, flagship PBS station WQED in Pittsburgh announced plans to move the "Viewers Like You" credit to the front of the donor list, in order to give home viewers more recognition. The following month, PBS announced similar plans nationally. The move is being done because both the national PBS system and PBS member stations discovered that having "Viewers Like You" at the end of the donor list had the unintended consequence of leaving viewers feeling left out, despite the fact that viewers were the top contributor to PBS programming.


I thought that PBS should have offered a premium HD HBO-like channel to satellite - maybe "PBS Premium HD" - for some retail amount like $4.99 a month. They could use it to show programming that was distributed nationwide on locals the previous week. The portion of the fee that a satellite carrier remits to PBS could be split between the national network, the producers of the content which frequently includes a local PBS station somewhere, and the PBS station serving your DMA. In return, satellite carriers would be exempted from tying up bandwidth for local PBS HD channels. That would also avoid the controversies like:


> KQED was co-producer of the television adaptation of Armistead Maupin's novel, _Tales of the City_, which aired on PBS stations nationwide in January 1994. The six-part miniseries stirred controversy over the gay themes, nudity and illicit drug use in this fictional portrayal of life in 1970s San Francisco. The controversy led to calls from the public to cancel the series, a bomb threat at WTCI in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which forced that station to pull the program an hour before airtime, and threats from state and federal governments to cut funding for the network and its stations. Although the program gave PBS its highest ratings ever for a dramatic program, the network decided to forgo participation in the production of an adaptation of the second book in the series, _More Tales of the City_.


The channel could also show PBS Kids programming at appropriate times during the daytime.

But what do I know?


----------



## rasheed (Sep 12, 2005)

While a national feed would be nice for subscribers, it doesn't make sense for the local channels and it is a similar argument for national feed of other OTA channels like NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.

If I look especially in the top markets of PBS, they spend a lot on original programming. In So Cal, KCET (the flagship here) does a good deal of original programming and is one of the few affiliates to buy all of the PBS national feed.

The problem I think lies in the subchannels. I don't know what the law states for that, but many PBS stations run 3-4 subchannels. One of them is often PBS Kids, sometimes you will see a Spanish PBS, and sometimes you will see others like arts-focused or local-focused programming. The other area of concern is there are four PBS affiliates here (KOCE/KLCS/KVCR/KCET). We are probably a bit unique but that is a lot of capacity needs. I won't even go into the number of small OTA stations and how many additional channels would need to be carried.

I don't understand though why Dish still carries a 4:3 version of a channel -- why not just allow its receivers to downgrade the HD signal for non-HD viewers (assuming all customers had to get a MPEG4 reciver). I know the cable and satellite companies promised to carry a non-HD signal for a few more years, but did they promise a 4:3 and not a letterbox 16:9?

Rasheed


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Rasheed - while your idea may sound good, there are some issues with it.

#1 - not every Dish Sub has receivers that can receive MPEG4. As an example, myself -I'm turning a 625 back in and reactivating my old original 4900 to save some money (also cutting back on what programming I'm subscribing to also).

#2 - It's still the station's programming - Dish is just retransmitting it. They went to the stations and asked the STATIONS how they wanted the programming presented on the SD channels - not surprisingly - I'd bet a good majority said centercut 4:3 so it would "fill the screen" of an older CRT. Personally - I'm with you - under this circumstance, I'd prefer letterbox, but the stations are probably thinking what will make the most viewers happy.

I'm sure I did not cover all aspects to this, just a couple of easy highlights.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

Echostar 14, due for launch in March, will have 51 spotbeams, according to satelliteguys.us
That's a big increase. Dish campaigned for the current FCC formula, arguing that satellite providers were at a disadvantage compared to cable, and needed time to increase their HD capacity. So maybe this means some additional HD local expansion, before Feb. 17, 2011 when all local HD's must be carried in 30% of markets.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

I'll be glad to get PBS HD, but as others have noted I find myself watching public broadcasting less each year. Nova and Nature are good, but I can get as good or better from other channels. It's not like the old days when we had PBS or the Networks with nothing else to compete.

Thinking about it, I rarely watch the networks either, even though we've had HD feeds for a while now (Ft Wayne IN). I guess between hundreds of other choices compounded with DVR time shifting, there's little room for the old players.


----------



## 356B (Oct 11, 2008)

This is all economy based, if the economy was strong the vip922 would be operational, if the economy was strong PBS and others would be broadcast in HD. People are cutting back on programming as mention above and everything else for that matter. For those who can afford it, when it comes it may be a deal, then again maybe not.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

356B said:


> This is all economy based, if the economy was strong the vip922 would be operational, if the economy was strong PBS and others would be broadcast in HD. People are cutting back on programming as mention above and everything else for that matter. For those who can afford it, when it comes it may be a deal, then again maybe not.


That's a really good thought. PBS seems to be on the edge finance wise all of the time -- this economy has to be hurting them.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The thing is, our PBS station KQED not only is in HD but produces quality HD content of its own. There are a few others for which this is true. We watch a few things on PBS, about the same as The CW KBCW which is also broadcast in HD but Dish offers in SD only.

The CW affiliate is owned by CBS which owns KPIX the local CBS affiliate. Had Dish picked up the rights to The CW HD when it last negotiated for the rights to KPIX, they might have gotten both relatively cheap for awhile. Now CBS indicates that no carrier will get any retransmission rights on any of its stations without paying a bundle, something that was predictable except where your head is stuck inside a satellite.

This is the problem with Charlie. He's a decade behind the curve of the media business while a few years ahead of the curve in technology. So of course he stepped down from running the tech company Echostar and still runs the retail media side Dish Network.

Thanks to advance thinking, we Bay Area Dish subscribers were "fortunate" to get, as a side effect of negotiations with Young Broadcasting for big-4 affiliates elsewhere, our much hated MyNetwork affiliate KRON in HD (it's a long story, but suffice it to say most longer term residents of the region hate Young Broadcasting and were pleased to see it go into bankruptcy).

Apparently Dish negotiations have nothing to do with what would be most desired in a particular DMA or what is likely to happen five years out. It's like most medium-to-large DMA's have the big-4 because somebody in marketing said to Charlie you can't negotiate one channel in one DMA at a time because DirecTV is getting them all, so he begrudgingly acquiesced. That left him very unhappy because he couldn't enjoy his hobby of engaging in big battles with all the station owners over a long period of time.

Of course, on the technology side Charlie improved the OTA recording capability with a 722k. It's just that there are many of us who can't get OTA (and more since the digital broadcast revolution).


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I'd bet Dish will upgrade the smaller DMAs to all HD first since they contain fewer channels and thusly fewer TPs will be taken up to get to their 15% of DMAs goal.


----------



## AlexT (Apr 24, 2007)

phrelin said:


> It's just that there are many of us who can't get OTA (and more since the digital broadcast revolution).


how many is "many?"

don't OTA signals (from the big networks -- and even something like PBS) have a delivery reach of easily more than 95% of all US households?

(of course, I would be all for PBS HD locals being available via Dish.)


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

AlexT said:


> how many is "many?"
> 
> don't OTA signals (from the big networks -- and even something like PBS) have a delivery reach of easily more than 95% of all US households?
> 
> (of course, I would be all for PBS HD locals being available via Dish.)


That's the theory, but we cannot get OTA PBS where I live because of mountains, mesas and hills. OTA signal measurements and signal contours were designed fro flat areas. But, when you get into the parts of the country with geographic obstructions, the signal contours are meaningless. But, with analog there was a chance to get something, even if it was snowy. Now, with DTV; it's all line of sight. And the mesas that were there before the transition, are still there now. So, unless one lives near Mt. Morrison or Lookout Mountain and east, south of Table Mesa and north of the Palmer Divide, you will have a tough time getting OTA in the Denver area.

So, you get it from satellite or from Comcast. It makes no sense to pay $10 to $20 to Comcast, when one already paying fro satellite; especially for two channels (Denver has two PBS stations). By the way, before DISH delivered locals to Denver, I had the national PBS feed with ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX for New York and Los Angeles.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Has there been any talk about an HD feed of the PBS feed on 249?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

levibluewa said:


> Has there been any talk about an HD feed of the PBS feed on 249?


Unfortunately, all indications have been that PBS has said "no" to protect the bargaining positions of the local HD PBS channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AlexT said:


> don't OTA signals (from the big networks -- and even something like PBS) have a delivery reach of easily more than 95% of all US households?


Perhaps population-wise, but certainly not geographically.


----------



## SWTESTER (Apr 7, 2004)

phrelin said:


> ...
> The CW affiliate is owned by CBS which owns KPIX the local CBS affiliate. Had Dish picked up the rights to The CW HD when it last negotiated for the rights to KPIX, they might have gotten both relatively cheap for awhile. Now CBS indicates that no carrier will get any retransmission rights on any of its stations without paying a bundle, something that was predictable except where your head is stuck inside a satellite.
> ...
> Apparently Dish negotiations have nothing to do with what would be most desired in a particular DMA or what is likely to happen five years out. It's like most medium-to-large DMA's have the big-4 because somebody in marketing said to Charlie you can't negotiate one channel in one DMA at a time because DirecTV is getting them all, so he begrudgingly acquiesced. That left him very unhappy because he couldn't enjoy his hobby of engaging in big battles with all the station owners over a long period of time.
> ....


In Seattle, CBS only owns the CW affiliate KSTW. So therefore we may not get it until ???.. KIRO-TV (CBS) is owned by Cox... So in Seattle, DISH has MyTV and an independent (KONG) that has the early NBC affiliate news at 10:00.

Meanwhile, FiOS has all of these, in fact, has 2 PBS stations in HD, Seattle and Tacoma.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

How do we know that Dish would have to renegotiate an existing agreement in order to carry a local station in HD as opposed to SD? Post-digital transition, there is only one primary feed that is broadcast- a digital feed that can be viewed on HD or non-HD TV'S. Although we don't know what the fine print is in these contracts, I suspect that Dish and other providers have the right to retransmit the primary signal, whether HD or non-HD. 

DirecTV did reach an agreement with PBS in December 2007 to carry locals in HD, but it didn't say that DirecTV had to pay any extra money for HD rights. 
In fact, DirecTV got two national PBS standard definition channels as part of the bargain, so it may not have been about money at all.

Of course, renegotiating contracts when they expire is another matter. But I have some doubts over whether carrying all HD in a local market would open up a carriage rights battle.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Digital does NOT mean HD, FYI.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

All I know with any level of certainty about Charlie's attitude toward providing PBS in HD is the June 8 2009 Charlie Chat summary included the following answer to a question:


> A: PBS via over the air. Trying to get a national feed but PBS is unwilling to do that.


No information was offered about plans for local PBS in HD. And of course there was this December news release language (emphasis added):


> DISH Network thanks the U.S. House of Representatives for passing this bill. House leadership, as well as Chairmen Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Rick Boucher, and Ranking Members Joe Barton and Cliff Sterns, were instrumental in securing its passage. _*DISH Network remains concerned about the HD carriage mandate for PBS stations included in the bill....*_


Based upon this, I concluded (perhaps unfairly:sure that there isn't enough tennis or fishing on PBS for Charlie to want to watch it much less in HD.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

_Broadcasting & Cable, 1/27/2010 10:52:26 AM
There is House and Senate agreement about language on a satellite reauthorization bill, according to House Communications & Internet Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
he expected the legislation to pass and be signed by the president "well before" the Feb. 28 deadline._
____________________________________________________________________

The House version and one of two Senate versions contain a provision requiring Dish to carry all noncommercial HD locals by 2011. It remains to be seen if this is in the final version. Dish reached an agreement with legislators to carry locals in all the remaining markets it doesn't yet serve. In return, Dish would once again be allowed to import distant network stations into rural areas not served by their own local affiliates.
There is speculation the deal could fall through if an additional carriage burden is placed on Dish. However, legislators were quoted as saying they don't believe the noncommercial HD requirement would be a "poison pill" to the deal, and they think Dish might still reach its own HD carriage agreement with PBS in the near future.

Here is a portion of an article on passage of the Senate Commerce Committee's version.

________________________________

_The Senate Commerce bill has a provision essentially cutting in half the current FCC timetable --from four years to two-- for satellite operators to deliver noncommercial stations' HD signals.
Dish in a statement indicated that it "continues to have concerns about the practical and constitutional problems associated with the PBS HD mandate."
Not surprisingly, the Association of Public Television Stations saw it differently, applauding the provision. 
"APTS is pleased with the firm action taken today by the Senate Commerce Committee to end the discriminatory behavior by Dish Network against local public television stations. There is no justification for Dish Network continuing to deny its subscribers the extraordinary brilliance and clarity of public television's high-definition broadcasts in local markets all across America," said APTS president CEO Larry Sidman in a statement.
But he also said APTS would still try to negotiate a private carriage deal, as it has done with DirecTV and cable operators._


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

Letter from Dish to congress explaining why it can't provide PBS in HD by 2011.
Despite this, the version passed by the House and one of two versions passed by the Senate contains this deadline. It remains to be seen how the final version of the bill appears. Dish doesn't say anything about the satellite scheduled for launch this spring.


----------

