# Will You Lose the Distant Network Feeds? Here is what DirecTV Says



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

With all the confusion surrounding this issue, I decided to speak to someone higher up in DirecTV. Here is what they told me (I spoke to three different people, each of whom told me the same thing):



> _Explanation from DirecTV's upper management_
> 
> *If you currently do not have distant network feeds, you will not be able to get them, with or without waivers. If you disconnected them you cannot have them reinstated. Those customers who presently receive their distant network feeds will not lose them (emphasis original), even if you presently have what we call local-into-local channels. We are not going to police the accounts and turn off these channels to customers presently receiving them. In effect, these customers are grandfathered. They receive such channels, particularly those in the upper 300's, because they have either obtained a waiver from their local network affiliate or because they live in an area where they were eligible to receive them. Regardless of the situation, these customers will retain them after January 1st. There is no need to fear you will lose channels to which you are presently subscribed.*


P.S. If something different happens January 1, don't blame me! 

I'm just reporting what several upper-level folks told me.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

I hope this is indeed the case. I have FOX NY, despite being in grade A of a one year old FOX affiliate. I don't want to lose this distant.

However, I seem to recall someone saying that SHVERA mandates that satellite providers supply a list of names and addresses of distant net subscribers in their market to each network affiliate. If so, couldn't the local affiliate demand the feed to be shutoff if living in the grade A contour? As it stands now, that would be how I lose FOX NY.


----------



## cnacht (Dec 24, 2003)

I was going to switch from Dish to Directv because of my frustration with the 921, and now I probably won't because I fear I would lose my Chicago Distants and CBSHD out of New York. I was told the exact same thing from a Directv CSR today. She also couldn't tell me if I qualify for the distant HD feeds unless I was a customer and filed the waivers. I don't think I want to spend the money to switch and possibly be shut out of HD locals altogether(at least I have CBS). I can't get the big 4 networks OTA, so SHVIRA doesn't do squat for me.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

cnacht said:


> I was going to switch from Dish to Directv because of my frustration with the 921, and now I probably won't because I fear I would *loose* my Chicago Distants


Try tightening them then. That might make them stick.


----------



## cnacht (Dec 24, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> Try tightening them then. That might make them stick.


I edited my post, but I wish it was that easy to tighten them and make them stick. It is hard to get Dish to stick to their words.


----------



## Vermonter (Nov 15, 2004)

Dos that mean that they will have their HD act together on Jan 1? I currently have locals but not the national HD feeds..even though we should get them as we'll be in a "digital white area". In investigating this a few days ago by calling Directv I proposed I lived in a distant-eligible area close by in the same DMA and should also get the same locals; however the answer was either distants + HD or locals and no HD..not both.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

I have all the Distant Network Feeds from N.Y. and L.A. With the exception of PBS Channel 384. I have had these networks ever since I have been a Direc Tv Subscriber. I don't want to lose these channels. Why do they make things so difficult? Why Can't Congress pass a bill to allow people to receive distant Network Feeds. Local Broadcasters have rights i know all this. But WHY must they shut us out who are willing to subscribe to Long Distance Feeds. They need to be easing up on these Laws instead of tightening them. I know I am grandfathered in to keep my Distants. But there are other Distant Networks that I wish that I could Receive. I wish I could receive Chicago, Illinois Locals.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

MSguy, as I posted above, DirecTV has explained that if you already have the 380's, as you indicated you do, then you will not lose them.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

Lord Vader. Do you think Direc Tv will ever ease up on offering Only The New York and Los Angeles Network Feeds and allow subscribers to order and subscribe to other Distant Network Cities? Dish has done this. I know there are a few other Cities allowed for subscribers to view and Chicago's Feeds are one. I think Atlanta was another and Dallas also at one time was a city offered Other than New York, or Los Angeles.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

I don't think it was Dallas. 

It was Denver - the ORIGINAL "distant" city, offered to consumers via BUD long before LA or NY came on board via PrimeTime24.

It's a sad historical waypoint that a Denver-based company like E* is dropping it from distant feeds.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Msguy said:


> Lord Vader. Do you think Direc Tv will ever ease up on offering Only The New York and Los Angeles Network Feeds and allow subscribers to order and subscribe to other Distant Network Cities? Dish has done this. I know there are a few other Cities allowed for subscribers to view and Chicago's Feeds are one. I think Atlanta was another and Dallas also at one time was a city offered Other than New York, or Los Angeles.


No, I seriously doubt it, mainly because the networks are essentially headquartered out of NY and LA, and those two cities are considered the primary sources. Everything in Hollywood--TV's and movies--centers around NY and LA.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

With all the comments around here about waivers and all, I thought I should clarify a comment I made here and there about a good way to get them.

First, be advised that under the new law, waivers are treated much differently than they were before. I can't go into that entire explanation, as I'm not the expert on that. What I _*can*_ say is that if you truly do qualify for at least applying for a waiver, there IS a way to ensure you'll get approved ones. Clever is the Dark Side.

Now, on this subject, from what I know, here's somewhat of a synopsis:


If you had DNS feeds and canceled them, you are now screwed. You will not be able to get them activated again, waiver or no waiver. Call it a "use 'em or lose 'em" scenario.
If you cancel your DTV or DISH account (and had the DNS feeds while you were a subscriber), then you cannot get the DNS feeds activated when you resubscribe or switch to the other provider.
If you are _*able to receive*_ your local channels through your DBS provider, then you are not eligible to receive the corresponding DNS feeds. It doesn't matter if you don't actually subscribe to your DISH or DTV-delivered locals. If you're _*able to receive them*_--this is called local-into-local--then you can't get a DNS feed. Waivers won't get you them, either. This is a major difference from the old law's exceptions.
Essentially, the only folks who will be able to get DNS feeds are those in an O&O market for a particular network--this is for HD DNS feeds--or those other folks who currently have the DNS feeds (the 380's on DTV, for example). It is going to be very difficult for people who do not have DNS feeds to get them. These folks will be the ones who canNOT get DBS-delivered locals--an admittedly shrinking number, BTW--and have to request a waiver from their local station. These are the ones I can help get those waivers.​


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

SimpleSimon said:


> I don't think it was Dallas.
> 
> It was Denver - the ORIGINAL "distant" city, offered to consumers via BUD long before LA or NY came on board via PrimeTime24.
> 
> It's a sad historical waypoint that a Denver-based company like E* is dropping it from distant feeds.


If I recall, when Dish first started offering Distants, you could get New York, LA, and superstations in a package for $9.99 a month. Directv was still offering the Primetime 24 distant feeds like C-Band. WKRN ABC Nashville, CBS WSEE Erie, PA, WNBC New York, and FoxNet, KOMO ABC Seattle, KPIX CBS San Francisco, KNBC LA. Then the Miami court cases against CBS and Fox distants had those removed and Directv began immediately offering New York and LA feeds and added Fox West--KTTV 11.

Then when Dish began adding more local cities, you could choose any city you wanted. For instance at one time I chose Salt Lake City, and received all the networks including UPN.

Then they had to limit the distant offerings for some reason, and only offered New York, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, and Seattle. I am not sure why but Seattle was taken off first, then Dallas was removed from the list. Now the very popular Denver (mountain time) distants have been removed as well only offering New York, LA, Chicago, and Atlanta.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

The spotbeams came online at the time and then you could only channels in your general area (an east coast viewer couldn't receive west coast stations OTHER than the big five.... NY, LA, Chicago, Denver, Atlanta)


----------



## slccm (Jul 30, 2004)

Lord Vader, here is a question for you about DNS. I've had Dish since late September and I was granted a waiver for CBS (NY), CBS HD (LA), ABC (AT), and ABC (LA) in early November. FOX and NBC denied my initial waiver request. In late November, I submitted a waiver request again for FOX and on January 3rd I started to receive the signal for FOX (CH) and FOX (LA). My status over on the Dish waiver page says status "pending." Fearing I may never get a shot at NBC again I called Dish on December 29th requesting a waiver and I'm now in the 45 day waiting window. Locals for my market are broadcast on Dish and I receive them. My question is will I lose FOX and will NBC be granted? Will the application requests that occurred prior to January 1st be of help because they were requested before the deadline? Thanks.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

It's difficult to say, but you seem to have indicated that you did request waivers before the deadline. One thing that seems unclear is whether a _request_ for a waiver must be done prior to January 1, 2005 or if the actual waiver itself must be _submitted_ prior to said date.

Have you received a response from FOX and NBC? Let me know. There's a way to get them to respond in the affirmative for your waiver request.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2005)

Msguy said:


> Why Can't Congress pass a bill to allow people to receive distant Network Feeds. Local Broadcasters have rights i know all this. But WHY must they shut us out who are willing to subscribe to Long Distance Feeds


The answer is that our congressmen and senators are taking money from the broadcast lobby and passing bills to protect broadcasters from competition. Laws like "must-carry" and SHVIA are examples of the influence of big money on politics. Until we start holding politicians accountable and throwing them out of office, this will continue.

As to the "rights" of broadcasters, they are using the public airwaves to make a profit and they shouldn't get to make the rules. If the technology exists to allow the choice of distant TV stations and there are willing buyers and sellers, then why should consumers be denied that choice? It's like being told you can't read the NY Times because you live in Chicago.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

*So you think this is unfair?*


----------



## slccm (Jul 30, 2004)

Lord Vader, I'm receiving Fox Chicago and LA as of yesterday morning. The waivers were submitted on November 29th (date listed on waiver page) and the Dish waiver page also states received January 3rd 9:00 AM status pending. If you don't get it approved it says denied. NBC was submitted on December 29th. My reasoning is the submission was done before midnight January 1st 2005, therefore if approved it occurred (submission) before the change (do we all need attorneys to get DNS service). Am I correct? Let me know how I can a get NBC to respond in the affirmative for my waiver request. Thanks


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

No, you don't need attorneys. If you submitted your waivers, all you need to do is wait. I hope you saved copies of them however. As far as how to get a waiver from NBC, you might be out of luck there. The new law says that if you're ABLE to get your local NBC channel via satellite, then you cannot get its DNS feeds, and waivers won't be able to change this. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to try. Check your PM for more info on this.

Never mind. I can't help you any further, since you don't have PM capability. You're on your own now.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

There is nothing in the new law that prohibits the granting of waivers. Quite the contrary, there are actually additional provisions for waivers. If D* is no longer applying for analog waivers, as I have read elsewhere, that's company policy, not something mandated by law.

However, because DNS is no longer permitted in LIL areas, you can now apply for and must have a waiver from your LIL station in addition to any grade B contour stations, assuming your satellite company goes along.

For more information see this thread.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> *So you think this is unfair?*


I gotta tell ya - that cracks me up. I saved it and am going to play it for my kids every time they complain about their chores.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Now back to business.

I really think our only hope now is pushing to get the digital "white" area established NOW. Heck, it already exists at: http://www.iwantmyhdtv.com/iwanthdtv/ .

Maybe if we start making a lot - I mean LOT or noise to our newly sworn-in, full of piss and vinigar, Congress and the FCC, (Maybe even try to get some press on this) we can get them moving. Until it's done, the DBS people aren't going to do anything.
WaltinVt


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

As was explained by Dan on the DBS forum, you can receive the DNS feeds if:

1)* You have an RV exemption* - NO CHANGE. Nothing in the SHVERA has ANY effect on RV exemptions.

2) *You have distant networks now AND subscribe to your local affiliates from your DBS provider* - Depends upon HOW you obtained the distant networks...
a) You are within the Grade B contour of one or more local network affiliates (which means you were grandfathered under the SHVIA) - You may keep distant networks OR your local affiliates, but not both. Once you receive notice from your DBS provider, you have 60 days to select distant networks, if that is your preference. If you do not respond, distant network service will be discontinued.
b) You are outside the Grade B contour of one or more local network affiliates (whether according to ILLS prediction, the result of signal measurements, or the granting of a waiver from your local affiliate) - You may keep both distant signals and local affiliates. If you discontinue service, or move, or otherwise change the conditions of your subscription to local and/or distant signals, then you will fall under the provisions of item 4 below.

Note: The DBS providers are required to provide the names and addresses of distant network subscribers, if they do not, then they may not continue to provide distant signals.

3) *You have distant networks now and your DBS provider does not offer your local affiliates* - You may keep your distant networks. If and when locals are offered, if you want them you must give up the distant networks.

4) *You do not currently have distant networks* - A couple of possible outcomes, depending on your location:
a) You live inside the Grade B boundary of local affiliates - You can not get distant networks
b) You live outside the Grade B boundary of local affiliates and your DBS provider offers your in-market locals - you can not get distant networks.
c) You live outside the Grade B boundary of local affiliates and your DBS provider does not offer your in-market locals - You may subscribe to distant networks.

An explanatory statement of the legislation, as passed, can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...=TOC_61705&

Totally independent of these points, IF you live in a market where the local network affiliate is owned and operated (O&O) by the network, then you can get a distant High Definition (ONLY!!) feed of that network. If you local affiliate is not O&O then you are restricted to what they provide, HD or not.

There are also some cases where a station can be delivered outside of its DMA, but within its home state, if it is the only high power affiliate of its network in the state.

Bottom line, if you do not currently have distant networks, the only way to get them is to have an RV exemption, or live someplace where your DBS provider does NOT offer locals AND that is outside the Grade B contour for any network affiliate.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

One question I have is if I eventually receive a 60 day notice and choose to keep distant networks, example FOX / NBC, but never added ABC / CBS, live 70 miles away from my closest large city, but sub to them... If I drop my so called locals, can I then add ABC / CBS? I live outside the B contour.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Marcus S said:


> One question I have is if I eventually receive a 60 day notice and choose to keep distant networks, example FOX / NBC, but never added ABC / CBS, live 70 miles away from my closest large city, but sub to them... If I drop my so called locals, can I then add ABC / CBS? I live outside the B contour.


I wish someone had answered the above question but also, more specifically:

I've had distants analogs of NBC & Fox from Dish since Feb '04. 
I've also had CBS-HD from Dish since Feb '04. (I had asked for CBS distant but for some reason they only gave me the CBS-HD). 
I didn't ask for the distant ABC at that time.
I've also had LILs from Dish. 
I live in Vermont hills and with a good rooftop antenna still can not get locals OTA of any network, digital or analog, except PBS.
I just received my letter from Dish about deciding which I want to keep.

This would be simple if I'd had all the distant nets, I'd just cancel my LILs and keep all the distants but instead I have a complicated decision to make.
I realize I can cancel my LILs and keep the 2 analog distants I have, NBC & Fox but what about the CBS-HD and the 2 distant nets (abc & cbs) I didn't have ?

Thanks,
Walt


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

In response to waltinvt having someone answer questions, I'll start with Marcus S:


Marcus S said:


> One question I have is if I eventually receive a 60 day notice and choose to keep distant networks, example FOX / NBC, but never added ABC / CBS, live 70 miles away from my closest large city, but sub to them... If I drop my so called locals, can I then add ABC / CBS? I live outside the B contour.


Marcus has been upset with this whole endeavor, and it will become more upsetting:

If someone receives mail from their DBS company stating they must choose to keep their local service or their Distant Network Service (DNS), then those are the only two choices there are. Your local service is defined as the channels available to the subscriber because the satellite company is retransmitting a given market's local stations back into the market. In Marcus' case, it is Denver. The DNS is defined as the channels available to a subscriber due to some qualifications in law that are not local channels. Marcus receives DNS for Fox and NBC.

If Marcus receives notice in the mail about making a choice, then Marcus either chooses between the Denver locals or his DNS service (his distant Fox and NBC). Marcus does not qualify for DNS service for CBS and ABC. Due to the law, Marcus will never receive them. Marcus is allowed Fox and NBC because he has been subscribing to those prior to enactment of the SHVERA. With the SHVERA, Marcus no longer qualifies for CBS and ABC, since the local channels for his market are available via satellite.

Walt, you are in the same boat. OTA reception does not matter; because Burlington is available via satellite, you do not qualify for DNS under the new rules. You will not be able to receive distant analog networks from CBS and ABC. You will be able to keep your Fox and NBC DNS, but you will lose your local channels if you do so. I believe the CBS-HD feed is under a different rule, and you get to keep that.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

I received the dreaded *IMPORTANT NOTICE* from DISH. I've had NY and LA channels forever, but now I have a choice of which I want to keep after April 17th. I have to let them know by April 7th. I live in the LA DMA.

I plan to request an RV exemption, but don't see a reference to it on their web site. I'll call, of course, but since the customer service lines will probably be busy, I'll ask here. Are they still available?


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> In response to waltinvt having someone answer questions, I'll start with Marcus S:Marcus has been upset with this whole endeavor, and it will become more upsetting:
> 
> If someone receives mail from their DBS company stating they must choose to keep their local service or their Distant Network Service (DNS), then those are the only two choices there are. Your local service is defined as the channels available to the subscriber because the satellite company is retransmitting a given market's local stations back into the market. In Marcus' case, it is Denver. The DNS is defined as the channels available to a subscriber due to some qualifications in law that are not local channels. Marcus receives DNS for Fox and NBC.
> 
> ...


Thanks Greg,
Can you clarify the "different" rule for the CBS-HD a little and why I get to keep it ? I'm antisipating problems when I deal with Dish on this.

If I understand you correctly, when I cancel my Dish LILs, I can keep my NBC and Fox distant analog feeds plus the CBS-HD feed (all out of NY) all currently provided by Dish.

Ok, so I do that and later at some point Dish strikes a deal with Fox and / or NBC to get their national HD feed similar to how they have with CBS, will I be entitled to get them until such time as my local HDs become available thru Dish ?

By the way, thanks fopr taking the time with this.
WaltinVt


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Well, it looks like Dan's interpretation was right and mine was wrong. I still find it incredible that the NAB would actually push for this, and that Congress would go along, but hey, maybe some Congressmen like irate letters from constituents, I dunno&#8230;.

First thing, anyone forced to choose should always choose distants to start, because this decision can be reversed any time you want. Wait until they turn off locals on April 17, then switch back on April 18 if so inclined. But once you give up distants, they're gone forever.

In the meantime, I would send a letter along the following lines to your DBS provider and all your local station managers: 
. . .
_*Dear *[insert station manager's name]*,

My family and I have been watching and enjoying *[insert distant signal ID]* via DBS since 19*[insert year]*. Since *[insert date]*, we have also been able to receive and enjoy your station. Unfortunately, as a result or recent changes in the law, *[insert DBS company name]* is now requiring us to choose between the distant station and your station. A copy of their letter is enclosed.

We would very much like to continue receiving both channels, but if forced to choose, our family consensus is to continue receiving the channels we have had longer rather than your station. We understand, however, that under 17USC119(a)(4)(F), you may grant us a waiver to receive a distant network signal in addition to your signal. We hereby request a waiver to receive *[insert distant signal ID(s)]*.

We hope you will consider this request favorably, because although we would very much like to continue receiving your station, we will be unable to do so after April 17, unless you grant this waiver.

Sincerely, etc.

*_. . .
You could also include some language about the unfairness/obnoxiousness/etc. of forcing you to make this choice, as long as you can keep it polite and professional.

The important point is that this is basically a FREE KICK for you, the DBS DNS subscriber. The NAB has effectively invited you to kick them in the rear, so do it!!

Even if you turn off locals only from April 17 until the start of May sweeps, I think it would be worth it just to throw a scare into these morons.

Finally, as I've written previously, I still believe the law can be interpreted so as not to force this choice, and if enough people respond as suggested above, the NAB itself will be crying for that alternate interpretation, which would be ironic indeed.

I know, I know, that will never happen&#8230; but it's fun to dream&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

waltinvt said:


> I've had distants analogs of NBC & Fox from Dish since Feb '04.
> I've also had CBS-HD from Dish since Feb '04.


If you subscribed to DNS in 2004, the choice shouldn't apply to you. I would keep distants for now, and make further inquiries.


----------



## CJLinst (Dec 19, 2004)

Just got my letter from Dish. I've had NY and LA since 1997. When I was evaluating a switch to DirecTV instead of buying a 921, my wife vetoed the decision based on the NY networks, which we would certainly have not been given as a new D* sub.

Now, with the NY locals going away and FOX, ABC, and NBC in HD on D*, there's going to be a 921 available on eBay very soon. I do not blame Charlie for Congress' legislation, but I do blame him for the lack of information and downright obfuscation of E*'s High Definition plans.

All this, added to the stupid PVR fee, and I'm gone.... Maybe in time to catch the tail end of '24' in HD.


----------



## sflam (Feb 11, 2005)

does anybody know if I can ask directv to change my place of service address so that I can receive the new york local feeds


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Your address is in San Diego, according to your profile. If you "move", you no longer can receive distant network service if your address is within a market that is serviced with their local channels.


----------



## bcushman (Jan 21, 2003)

Try as hard as I can to find an answer, I still am not sure about my position. I presently receive Grade A signals from BOTH the Boston & Providence channels. In October 2004, when I asked for, I received the CBS and NBC channels (NY & LA). Because Boston has an O&O CBS channel I only pay for the LA feed & get the HD feed (NY) free. I pay for both feeds from NBC. I get the Fox HD feed free because of a O&O station in Boston. I AM PRETTY CERTAIN I AM LUCKY TO RECEIVE THESE CHANNELS.

Fortunately, I am in a position where I receive excellent OTA reception of all HD channels, and have the distants for time shifting and seeing LA & NYC news. If I lose them, I save money but lose the convenience of the additional channels.

My question is will I at some point have to make a choice on which channels I want to keep or will they just be removIed.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

Here is what I copied from another forum, hope thats not against the rules. Is this true? Obviously, if interpreted correctly, rurals are in fact screwed by SHVERA. What was Congress thinking? Oh that's right, they where not.



> Q: You receive DNS nets and have never sub'd to locals because you cannot receive them OTA, LIL not available under DBS spot, and/or not considered in a served area under Nielson. You can add/drop DNS and you should also be eligible for HD DNS.
> A: No change.
> 
> From this point on, assume you now qualify for LIL under Nielson.
> ...


----------



## fwdlink (Nov 8, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> Here is what I copied from another forum, hope thats not against the rules. Is this true? Obviously, if interpreted correctly, rurals are in fact screwed by SHVERA. What was Congress thinking? Oh that's right, they where not.


Hmm, thanks for posting this...I'm VERY PERPLEXED because I have subscribed since 99 and HAVE waivers for all of my networks and I have LIL. According to what I have read, I should be able to keep both, is this YES or NO? On the Q&A that was just posted it leaves me to believe this is yes..

I received my postcard from DTV today stating I must make a choice, I can not have my cake and eat it too. SIGH.. (This is the account I've had since 98 actually and waivers in 99 after the lawsuit)

I'm still waiting for my E* letter...On E*, I have waivers for all networks again, with LIL, but have only had them for a couple of years. I suspect I'll be forced to make the decision on those.

In all cases, I'm saying screw my local networks, serves them right and I'm going for the Distants.

ARe the letters out for E* now? Just curious...

Tnx


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Marcus S said:


> Here is what I copied from another forum, hope thats not against the rules. Is this true? Obviously, if interpreted correctly, rurals are in fact screwed by SHVERA. What was Congress thinking? Oh that's right, they where not.


Marcus,

A lot of stuff in that repost is just plain wrong. I don't have time to dissect it all, but Greg Bimson took it on over in dbsforums, and I added a couple of points there. See the "Shvera" thread, page 13:

http://www.dbsforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36718&perpage=15&pagenumber=13


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Got my Card in and sent off Saturday, elected to keep distants...doh... (already have locals on E*)....


----------



## fwdlink (Nov 8, 2003)

dfergie said:


> Got my Card in and sent off Saturday, elected to keep distants...doh... (already have locals on E*)....


So has ANYONE received communication from E* on this yet? I have not and am a bit worried they're going to make the decision for me.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Nope, still have locals and distants (I have waivers for some, others I signed up online)


----------



## calguy99 (Dec 2, 2004)

Hi,

Jut got back to the forum. I got a card from DTV telling me I had to choose between Distand Networks and local channels. I have been a subscriber to DTV and have had Distant networks since 1996. Here is a copy of the card I received: http://incambria.com/Distant Networks masked.pdf


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

DirecTV's own web site, however, says absolutely nothing about waivers and those who are supposed to be able to continue receiving both locals and DNS. I haven't received this card--yet--but I'm one who supposedly falls into the category of being able to keep both, based on what one reputed expert on another forum explained.


----------



## hoopsbwc34 (Aug 13, 2002)

I received my DNS when I was outside the grade B signal strength requirement, but have moved, and they never disconnected them. Now that I'm well within a grade B signal, I'm expecting they won't give me the option to keep my distants, is that correct? Seems like I should get some warning that they are going to be disconnected....but maybe not.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> The answer is that our congressmen and senators are taking money from the broadcast lobby and passing bills to protect broadcasters from competition. Laws like "must-carry" and SHVIA are examples of the influence of big money on politics. Until we start holding politicians accountable and throwing them out of office, this will continue.
> 
> As to the "rights" of broadcasters, they are using the public airwaves to make a profit and they shouldn't get to make the rules. If the technology exists to allow the choice of distant TV stations and there are willing buyers and sellers, then why should consumers be denied that choice? It's like being told you can't read the NY Times because you live in Chicago.


I agree 100%. I got waivers as a professional courtesy from my NBC and ABC stations (I work in the broadcast media). I had DirecTV but to get Atlanta and Chicago in addition to NY and LA thought I'd try DISH. DISH never recognized the wiavers becase they were "addressed to DiercTV", the service I had when I got them. DirecTV told me they would expire after having been inactive for 180 days so I switched back to DirevTV inside of that time frame. After having switched back to DireTV they said "Sorry, we will not reinstate them".

All I want to do is watch out of town local newscasts. They block access to the DNS 24/7 because they carry network programming part of the time. I sure if a federal court looked at this it would be rulled unconstitutional. They can easily put DNS on an on/off timer to only block the network programming but open up the channel when local news is carried. They already do this for the NFL Season Ticket and PPV movies.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

News Junky said:


> All I want to do is watch out of town local newscasts. They block access to the DNS 24/7 because they carry network programming part of the time. I sure if a federal court looked at this it would be rulled unconstitutional. They can easily put DNS on an on/off timer to only block the network programming but open up the channel when local news is carried. They already do this for the NFL Season Ticket and PPV movies.


Expensive for the satellite companies to implement. And how much return can they expect? Probably not enough to break even on the endeavor. So I suspect they wouldn't, even if they could.
Btw, my read is that they could do that now, set up a local news hodgepodge channel. Since there is no network programming, doesn't violate SHIEVA(sp?). But as I said, will cost some coin, and I doubt many would subscribe, so would lose money.
another point, which local news channels? There are quite a few of them out there. Over 200 DMA's, with an average of 3 network channels. Plus some UPN/WB/independents do news shows. Thats going to be roughly 1000 different news channels.


----------



## Navy_Chief (Feb 25, 2005)

I'm located within the B zone. Unfortunately, there is this beautiful and very significiant ridge line between me and the local Los Angeles market, which blocks reception. To further complicate matters, I live close in to the base of the ridge line, so I can't take advantage of knife-edge refraction. One street over, and I could receive a reliable signal, but for all intents and purposes, I'm in the middle of a dead zone.

When I first moved here in 71, our housing tract owned three 75-foot TV towers which were used to provide coverage for all the homes in the tract. With the advent of cable, the City decided to pass an ordinance prohibiting roof top and/or towers, so if you wanted TV, you had to subscribe to cable. Talk about a captive audience.

I've enjoyed both local and distant programming for a number of years now, via Dish. I opted to continue receiving distant stations, which effectively renders all of the arguments put forth by the local TV stations moot. They have lost our household as a customer.

In their letter denying my request for a waiver, they said that Dish had misstated the law and their was no need for a waiver. They closed their letter without stating what the exceptions were, but clearly stated *"Once again, however, it is not true that subscribers who currently receive both distant and local signals must choose between them. Such subscribers can always continue to receive a local network signal where it is being offered, whether or not they also receive a distant signal. By the same token, whether those subscribers remain eligible in addition to receive a distant network signal depends on the criteria adopted in the new law, which have nothing to do with whether they receive local channels."*


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Navy_Chief said:


> In their letter denying my request for a waiver, they said that Dish had misstated the law and their was no need for a waiver. They closed their letter without stating what the exceptions were, but clearly stated *"Once again, however, it is not true that subscribers who currently receive both distant and local signals must choose between them. Such subscribers can always continue to receive a local network signal where it is being offered, whether or not they also receive a distant signal. By the same token, whether those subscribers remain eligible in addition to receive a distant network signal depends on the criteria adopted in the new law, which have nothing to do with whether they receive local channels."*


Please post the full text of this, including the station of origin. I'd be interested in talking to their legal department to see how they arrived at this interpretation.


----------



## Navy_Chief (Feb 25, 2005)

joblo said:


> Please post the full text of this, including the station of origin. I'd be interested in talking to their legal department to see how they arrived at this interpretation.


Here is the letter that I received. They completely overlooked that while in zone B, I was in a documented dead zone. I received a letter from KNBC4, today, granting a waiver. In the letter they recognized that I was in a dead zone and incapable of receiving an OTA signal.

KCBS-TV
6121 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
(323) 460-3000

March 25, 2005

Dear Viewer:

As a result of communications they have received from the DISH Network, a number of our viewers have requested that we provide waivers of the Satellite Home Viewer Act so that they may continue to receive a distant CBS signal.

We regret that we are unable to grant such requests, and would like to try to explain why.

First, we want to clear up some misconceptions. *Some of our viewers report being told by DISH that, under the amendments to the Act adopted last December, they must now choose between continuing to receive a distant signal and continuing to receive KCBS-TV. That is simply a misstatement of the law. Your eligibility to continue to receive a distant signal under the tighter standards enacted by Congress last year depends on a number of factors, but is in no way affected by whether or not you continue to subscribe to KCBS-TV.
*
Now let us turn to the reason we must decline your request for a waiver.

It is important to understand that the Satellite Home Viewer Act was never intended to create an unrestricted right for satellite carriers to provide -- or their subscribers to receive -- distant network signals. Rather, Congress limited eligibility to receive distant network signals to those satellite subscribers who could not receive an over-the-air signal of a specified strength from a local affiliate of the network in question. In so limiting the availability of distant network signals, Congress sought to balance the interests of satellite subscribers -- especially those in rural locations who could not receive network programming in any other way -- with the protection of the legitimate copyright interests of local television stations.

Those local stations, in one way or another, provide value for the right to be the exclusive distributor of their network's programming in their communities. But the value of that exclusive franchise is undermined by the importation of duplicating signals from other cities into their markets. Local television stations support their programming through advertising revenues, which of course depend on audience size. Obviously, viewership can be significantly affected by the importation of distant stations offering the same network programming.
congress recognized this when it enacted the Satellite Home Viewer Act --without which satellite companies would be unable to provide their subscribers with any programming from broadcast television stations at all. Congress also knew that local, over-the-air television stations provided free network and local programming to viewers who could not afford, or did not wish, to subscribe to cable or satellite service.

Accordingly, Congress limited the right of satellite companies to provide distant network programming, authorizing such service only to those subscribers who were "unserved" by a local network affiliate. The law was intended to provide "life-line" network service to those who would otherwise be without it, without unnecessarily subjecting local television stations to unfair competition that undermined their exclusive rights to present network programming in their communities.

Dramatic technological advances since the original enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act now make it possible for satellite companies to offer local television stations to their subscribers in many markets. This in turn has undermined the rationale for permitting satellite companies to provide distant network signals in markets where they make the local network affiliates available.

In enacting last year's legislation, Congress made a basic decision to "require satellite operators to stop offering distant broadcasts signals once they carry local signals," with some exceptions for existing subscribers.

Those exceptions are very complex and not easily summarized. *Once again, however, it is not true that subscribers who currently receive both distant and local signals must choose between them. Such subscribers can always continue to receive a local network signal where it is being offered, whether or not they also receive a distant signal. By the same token, whether those subscribers remain eligible in addition to receive a distant network signal depends on the criteria adopted in the new law, which have nothing to do with whether they receive local channels.*

We recognize that you may find our denial of your request for a waiver disappointing. However, we hope you will find this helpful in understanding the reasons we believe we must do so.
Sincerely,
KCBS-TV SATELLITE WAIVER DEPT.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Expensive for the satellite companies to implement. And how much return can they expect? Probably not enough to break even on the endeavor. So I suspect they wouldn't, even if they could.
> Btw, my read is that they could do that now, set up a local news hodgepodge channel. Since there is no network programming, doesn't violate SHIEVA(sp?). But as I said, will cost some coin, and I doubt many would subscribe, so would lose money.
> another point, which local news channels? There are quite a few of them out there. Over 200 DMA's, with an average of 3 network channels. Plus some UPN/WB/independents do news shows. Thats going to be roughly 1000 different news channels.


I really cannot buy that argument. It might be expensive but I doubt it. My rationale is they could easily implement the on/off component using the same computer software they currently use for pay-per-view movies and embargoed sportscasts. They have the on/off apparatus already and use it everyday of the week. The stations are already being carried on satellite for local into local so there would be no new satellite unlinking expenses. The only problem would be spot beaming and channel assignment, which might mean subscribers in Seattle wouldn't be able to get the Miami stations and that's a big maybe. I'm certain that Seattle subscribers however could get most markets on west coast and maybe the Rocky Mountain region. What I know cost them a ton of money was unlinking almost every local TV station in America on satellite that could then only be subscribed to by people in the small area where each station originated. I'm not in an inside position but I cannot see how my suggestion could cost very much money at all if anything and in fact profit generating when they charge additional "Regional or National Local Newscast" subscription fees to subscribers.

Every objection you make could be in some way applied to distributing out of town newspapers across the county but everyday people in Texas read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The Dallas Morning News probably didn't jump through hoops initially but now the Texas papers are read in New York. Honestly, I feel the biggest complications would be dealing with the censorship lobby (the corporate powerhouses who got congress to make local TV via satellite as restrictive as possible) of which DirecTV is a card-carrying member.

Thanks for the reply. Only DISH Network and DirecTV can answer that objection with authority and I'm going to keep asking until I get a satisfactory answer from someone in the position to decide whether or not they will offer local programming from distant stations and not just a computer screen reader in New Delhi, India.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

News Junky,

I really think the problem with out-of-market news access has more to do with copyrights than technical costs.

First off, only DNS and 5 or 6 specific "superstations" are exempt from Retrans Consent, so the stations would have to grant permission. In order to do that, they would need full rights to their newscasts. But most "local" newscasts have syndicated reports from national services like CNN, FOX, NBC, etc. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the contracts allowing the use of such reports would preclude granting out-of-market retrans consent.

The only practical way around that is probably to convince Congress that access to out-of-market news is sufficiently in the public interest to warrant an extension of the copyright and/or retrans consent exemption.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Navy_Chief said:


> Here is the letter that I received. They completely overlooked that while in zone B, I was in a documented dead zone.


I'm curious. Did you send KCBS a copy of the postcard you received that requires you to choose?

In any case, I would send copies of both the postcard and KCBS's letter back to both DISH and KCBS and ask them to please resolve their differences, making it clear that while you intend to keep DNS no matter what, you would very much prefer to have both.

Also copy in your House member and Senators and ask them who is right, DISH or KCBS. After all, Congress created this mess, so they ought to know.........


----------



## Redrhino (Jun 10, 2004)

joblo said:


> I'm curious. Did you send KCBS a copy of the postcard you received that requires you to choose?
> 
> In any case, I would send copies of both the postcard and KCBS's letter back to both DISH and KCBS and ask them to please resolve their differences, making it clear that while you intend to keep DNS no matter what, you would very much prefer to have both.
> 
> Also copy in your House member and Senators and ask them who is right, DISH or KCBS. After all, Congress created this mess, so they ought to know.........


Perhaps a conference call with the FCC as well... They seem to play some roll here in the interpretation of the law Congress wrote and the president signed. Frankly, you would think that the networks, satellite providers and the FCC could have a "sit down" of sorts to figure out which position is correct.

Redrhino


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

joblo said:


> News Junky,
> 
> I really think the problem with out-of-market news access has more to do with copyrights than technical costs.
> 
> ...


I agree, this could be the primary issue that could hurt this effort. However, some newscasts from network stations are streamed worldwide on the Internet with no complaints to my knowlege. Secondly, there are TV stations that will WANT to have their local newscasts distributed nationally for many reasons. I spoke with a network affiliate General Manager who was part of the corporte censorship team who helped get SHVIA enacted. I was told directly "they would take as many viewers from anywhere" and loved my idea. SHVIA was enacted in part to make sure a percentage of renegade stations didn't open the floodgates. TV stations want as many viers as possible. What they don't want to happen is to lose viewers due to duplication of national programs.

If Internet viedo quality drastically improves satellite might follow. If congressmen in Washington see a benifit of being able to wacth local news back in their home districts each evening, it'll help. If the local stations see a benifit to this either in ego gratification for small town stations becoming "national", out of town owners being able to monitor things from home or a true potential in making profit from distant market newscasts, it'll happen. Tourist destination markets like Orlando, etc. should love this idea. They can tell their advertisters people all over the country are watching their news in the lead up to vacations and will want to know what places to go and see, etc. Small towns will be able to put their communities on the map as more and more smaller towns seek busness growth. I can't beleive nobody has considered this before. The only people who stand to lose from this are the cable news channels slightly.


----------



## Navy_Chief (Feb 25, 2005)

joblo said:


> I'm curious. Did you send KCBS a copy of the postcard you received that requires you to choose?
> 
> In any case, I would send copies of both the postcard and KCBS's letter back to both DISH and KCBS and ask them to please resolve their differences, making it clear that while you intend to keep DNS no matter what, you would very much prefer to have both.
> 
> Also copy in your House member and Senators and ask them who is right, DISH or KCBS. After all, Congress created this mess, so they ought to know.........


Yes, I did. Interestingly, KNBC sent me an approval for distant. They then apparently re-read my letter, and sent me an identical letter approving local.

I'm writing my congress critter, but considering that they are both ultra-conservative Republicans, I seriously doubt they will assist. Their only interest is protecting corporate interests at the expense of their constituents.


----------

