# Committee Passes Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Committee Passes Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

So does this version elimintae waivers, and traet the WB and UPn like the other networks?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> So does this version elimintae waivers, and traet the WB and UPn like the other networks?


I don't believe it does, but I could be wrong, especially about the waivers part.

~Alan


----------



## Adam Richey (Mar 25, 2002)

It looks like significantly viewed stations were NOT part of this deal, which absolutely SUCKS. That is what I was looking forward to the MOST out of the whole deal.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Adam Richey said:


> It looks like significantly viewed stations were NOT part of this deal, which absolutely SUCKS. That is what I was looking forward to the MOST out of the whole deal.


Yeah, I'd like it if they would make an ammendment to this bill to add the "significantly viewed" clause, but I'm not an expert at politics, so I'm not sure this is possible.

~Alan


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

What would be good if the final bill that goes to the President has the significantly viewed portion of the House Bill with the digital distant nets of the senate bill.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

I haven't got all the specifics yet but I guess the bill passed the committee but with compromises. It now has to merge with the Senate Judiciary version and go for a full Senate vote - probably after the August recess. You can bet the NAB will be out in full force to try and defeat that vote. I've heard they're already gearing up and calling individule senators.

I guess one of the compromises was that the digital white area model does not go into effect until the FCC "creates" it and they've got 2 years to do it. In the interim, DBS could offer distant digital nets in analog white areas.

What I don't understand is what's left for the broadcasters to be so afraid of. There's more going on than my little pea brain can figure out I guess.

WaltinVt


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Here is what SkyReport published this morning:

Senate Panel Passes Key Sat TV Legislation

On Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee marked up legislation that will allow satellite TV providers to deliver a network high-def feed to distant network customers and addresses the delivery of local TV to a two-dish solution.

The legislation, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Rural Consumer Access to Digital Television Act, is sponsored by Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain also is chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. The bill would allow satellite TV providers to supply customers that cannot receive an over-the-air digital signal from the four major networks with a distant digital network signal by satellite.

"This bill is the result of hard work and compromise and has been approved in a bipartisan fashion," Ensign said. "Rural Americans are the true winners as a result, and I look forward to seeing this bill signed into law."

EchoStar praised the bill, saying it will encourage broadcasters to speed up the transition from analog to digital TV by making high-def available to consumers via satellite in areas local broadcasters do not reach. EchoStar also commended Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) for supporting the development and implementation of a digital white area model within a year, "and we hope the entire Congress will similarly embrace the committee's efforts to provide digital service to rural America," the company said.

And the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association was happy with passage of the bill. "It was critical that the Senate Commerce Committee pass this legislation and its work today is testimony of Congress' commitment to increase DBS' competitive capabilities and ability offer a choice for all Americans, especially those in rural areas," said SBCA President Richard DalBello.

The Digital Transition Coalition also commended the legislation. "Consumers throughout the nation, especially in rural America, are waiting to see the benefits of digital technology and Congress has taken an important step in making that a reality," the organization said in a statement.

The Ensign/McCain legislation also addresses the use of two dishes to receive local TV channels. EchoStar said it's disappointed with the 18-month timeframe the Senate Commerce Committee has presented for the switch from the two-dish solution to a single dish for reception of locals. However, "we believe the Senate has taken a far better approach than legislation passed by the House Commerce Committee," EchoStar said.

DirecTV also praised the committee for addressing "complex issues" contained in the legislation. "We remain concerned, however, about several provisions in the Senate draft, including resolving copyright issues with respect to the white area provision and the timeframe for ending the practice of relegating certain broadcasters to a second dish," the company said.

"We look forward to working with all the committees to ensure passage of this important legislation later this year," DirecTV said.

Reaction to the bill was mixed for the National Association of Broadcasters and its president, Edward Fritts.

"Our goal is to ensure consumer access to local television stations that provide news and lifeline information to local audiences," Fritts said. "We reject the notion that viewers might be better served by distant out-of-market stations. We applaud the bill's recognition that Echostar's discriminatory two-dish policy must end and look forward to working with Congress to complete the SHVIA reauthorization legislation."

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

I guess we need to see a copy of the actual markup that the committee passed. The Sky Report article conflicts somewhat with what my source at Dish is saying.

I was told the FCC still had 2 years to create a digital white area model and in the interim, only people that qualify for analog distants could get the HD distants.

It leaves the whole "who qualifies" issue pretty ambigious.

The origional Ensign version supposedly would have allowed satellite viewers that didn't get local digital OTA but DID get analog locals via satellite to still qualify for these HD distants. I have no idea if that part is still intact.

WaltinVt


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

The best source would be http://thomas.loc.gov, but I haven't checkd yet.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

OK, so if I have distant waivers for Fox-W and NBC-W does that mean that I can get Distant HD feeds for these channels now (when they become available?)


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

I believe this link is the marked up version that passed.

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/s2644amended.pdf

All you great minds read this and post your take.

WaltinVt


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

waltinvt said:


> I believe this link is the marked up version that passed.
> 
> http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/s2644amended.pdf
> 
> ...


It appears to me that they are giving the FCC 6 months to determine the qualifications on who qualifies for digital distant Nets and to deal with low power digital locals. It also appears to me that significantly viewed is included in the Senate bill too. With E10 going up next year, 18 months seams to be enough time for E* to phase out all 2-dish local markets into 1 dish. We could not ask for a better bill, I hope it survives intact.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Chris Freeland said:


> It appears to me that they are giving the FCC 6 months to determine the qualifications on who qualifies for digital distant Nets and to deal with low power digital locals.


Where are you seeing that ? I see 2 years to come up with a model.



> It also appears to me that significantly viewed is included in the Senate bill too.


I know it's Friday and my glasses aren't the greatest but I don't see that either.


----------



## RaceTrack (Jun 11, 2004)

I think i seen something about the significantly viewed but i couldnt make much out from it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

waltinvt said:


> I know it's Friday and my glasses aren't the greatest but I don't see that either.


 ''(A) any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located and that any multichannel video programming distributor was retransmitting to subscribers in the county on January 1, 2004; or 
''(B) up to 2 television broadcast stations located in the State in which the county is located, if the number of television broadcast stations that the multichannel video programming distributor is authorized to carry under subparagraph (A) is less than 3. 
''(C) DEEMED SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED.- 
Any station described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be significantly viewed in the eligible county within the meaning of section 76.54 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 76.54). 
''(2) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE COUNTY.-For purposes of this subsection, the term 'eligible county' means any 1 of 4 counties that-
''(A) are in a single State; 
''(B) on January 1, 2004, were in local markets principally comprised of counties in another State; and 
''(C) had a combined total of 41,340 television households according to the U.S. Television Household Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2003-2004. 
''(3) LIMITATION.-Carriage of a station under this section shall be at the option of the multichannel video programming distributor."

It starts on page 23.

~Alan


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

This SUCKS!!!

Unless I am misreading this, subsection (A) is the one that applies. Now, let's take the Baltimore/DC example, as if you were in the county where Annapolis sits (Anne Arundel County):


> ''(A) any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located and that any multichannel video programming distributor was retransmitting to subscribers in the county on January 1, 2004


The "any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located" implies that you must live in the same state as these significantly-viewed channels. Therefore, since the DC locals are not in the same state as Maryland, I will NOT be able to get them.

This absolutely SUCKS!!!!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Unless I am misreading this, subsection (A) is the one that applies. Now, let's take the Baltimore/DC example, as if you were in the county where Annapolis sits (Anne Arundel County):The "any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located" implies that you must live in the same state as these significantly-viewed channels. Therefore, since the DC locals are not in the same state as Maryland, I will NOT be able to get them.


I'm not sure because I've always been confused when it came to legal notices or stuff of the same nature. However, I would think that the "Washington DC" locals would be eligible if they:

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

Now, it may be saying this not as an "or", but as a "also". HOWEVER, it's also possible that due to the "unusual" circumstances of Washington DC, it will count them in the same state. Of course, even if they do that, a lot of people will still not be able to receive the channels that are available to them on cable.

~Alan


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Well, that sucks. Here in the Salisbury MD DMA, Comcast gets FOX from DC, NBC from DC and Baltimore and CBS from Baltimore (as well as local). If the DC channels are ruled out, we would still be without a "local" Fox channel. 

Im guessing the significantly viewed part also only applies to the DMAs where D*/E* are already serving locals. Which means its still going to be about 2 more years before I see any locals or significantly viewed channels here. Yay.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

How about some of you laywers or Holiday Inn residers putting this into terms us hill people can understand.


----------



## SD493 (Mar 10, 2003)

If a station in the area is not digital (such as my CBS station--and will not be for a while) does this mean I would be eligible for a distant feed? Or is it just giving the FCC time to decide who qualifies for a distant feed?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SD493 said:


> If a station in the area is not digital (such as my CBS station--and will not be for a while) does this mean I would be eligible for a distant feed? Or is it just giving the FCC time to decide who qualifies for a distant feed?


It would be the latter!

~Alan


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

My digital CBS OTA is only 6.9 KW so I wonder if I could get a distant. They would grant me a waiver though I think. When I asked for a waiver that granted me one but some nitwit CBS station 70 miles away and not in my DMA denied me a waiver because they said I was in grade B analog and screwed the whole thing up.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SParker said:


> My digital CBS OTA is only 6.9 KW so I wonder if I could get a distant. They would grant me a waiver though I think. When I asked for a waiver that granted me one but some nitwit CBS station 70 miles away and not in my DMA denied me a waiver because they said I was in grade B analog and screwed the whole thing up.


Well, here's the thing that I get from the "ammended" version of the bill, is that if you can receive their local "analog" signal, you can't get their "digital signals", although in two years, you might be able to, but by then your local CBS affiliate might be broadcasting in full power.

I'm kind of going through a similar situation as I just tried to get a waiver for CBS, but to do that I have to get permission from one station 63 miles away, and another from 73 miles away. I wrote a E-mail to the station 73 miles away, and though they haven't replied back from my last letter, their first reply leaves me feeling they won't grant me one, so I won't even try to find out if my closest one would grant me one.

Interestingly enough, over the last few days (because of atmospheric conditions, I guess) I have been able to pick up channels from other states, I have been able to pick up our closest ABC affiliate's digital signal (broadcasting at 1000kw) from 53 miles away, yet I haven't been able to pick up EITHER of my closest CBS affiliates or my closest NBC affiliate's digital signal (broadcasting at 29000kw) from 8.1 miles away...

~Alan


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> This SUCKS!!!
> 
> Unless I am misreading this, subsection (A) is the one that applies. Now, let's take the Baltimore/DC example, as if you were in the county where Annapolis sits (Anne Arundel County):The "any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located" implies that you must live in the same state as these significantly-viewed channels. Therefore, since the DC locals are not in the same state as Maryland, I will NOT be able to get them.
> 
> This absolutely SUCKS!!!!


On the flip side, since all of the digital stations (except PBS) come from either PA or NY, does that mean that ALL of NJ is a white area??????


----------



## SuperJack (Jul 6, 2004)

Does anyone know what the time frame for all this legislation is? When is the bill expected to be signed into law (regardless of how all the particulars shake out)? I'm mainly interested in when I may get offered significantly viewed channels -- a month, six months, a year, more???


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SuperJack said:


> Does anyone know what the time frame for all this legislation is? When is the bill expected to be signed into law (regardless of how all the particulars shake out)? I'm mainly interested in when I may get offered significantly viewed channels -- a month, six months, a year, more???


The current bill ends at Midnight on December 31st, 2004. The new law will take effect at Midnight on January 1st, 2005. Will the satellite companies start offering "significantly viewed" stations on that date, I don't know, but they will be "legally" able to do so.

~Alan


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Since the bill was in committee, it now goes to the floor for a vote. I just hope they can ammend the bill so that a DBS subscriber can subscribe to a neighboring market stations as long as the home market stations are subscribed to. In other words, since I live in the Sacramento market, I subscribe to the Sacramento locals, but should be allowed to subscribe to the San Francisco, Chico, or Reno locals since they are on the same spot beam at an additional cost.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

My local CBS is at full power because they are on Digital 2 so their full power is 6.9 KW! 



Alan Gordon said:


> Well, here's the thing that I get from the "ammended" version of the bill, is that if you can receive their local "analog" signal, you can't get their "digital signals", although in two years, you might be able to, but by then your local CBS affiliate might be broadcasting in full power.
> 
> I'm kind of going through a similar situation as I just tried to get a waiver for CBS, but to do that I have to get permission from one station 63 miles away, and another from 73 miles away. I wrote a E-mail to the station 73 miles away, and though they haven't replied back from my last letter, their first reply leaves me feeling they won't grant me one, so I won't even try to find out if my closest one would grant me one.
> 
> ...


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Gee... since I'm way out here in the sticks, maybe I can finally get rid of my BEV subsciption...

--- WCS


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

SuperJack said:


> Does anyone know what the time frame for all this legislation is? When is the bill expected to be signed into law (regardless of how all the particulars shake out)? I'm mainly interested in when I may get offered significantly viewed channels -- a month, six months, a year, more???


It's unlikely that Congress would allow the DBS providers' copyright license to offer ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX in analog to expire at the end of the year. There are too many subscribers that would lose service. Satellite Business News reports that Congress may opt to pass a simple one-year extension of the copyright license because there's not enough legislative days to work out a compromise among the different bills. This means that none of the provisions being debated this year would be included (i.e. significantly viewed, distant digital service, two-dish, etc.) Thus Congress would completely have to revisit the issue next year, and DBS providers would not be able to offer significantly viewed channels until the bill passes.

With that being said, the bill seems to allow satellite TV providers to offer significantly viewed channels immediately after the bill is signed in to law. The only questions is whether that will be this year or next year.


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

Mark Holtz said:


> Since the bill was in committee, it now goes to the floor for a vote. I just hope they can ammend the bill so that a DBS subscriber can subscribe to a neighboring market stations as long as the home market stations are subscribed to. In other words, since I live in the Sacramento market, I subscribe to the Sacramento locals, but should be allowed to subscribe to the San Francisco, Chico, or Reno locals since they are on the same spot beam at an additional cost.


I haven't seen language in any of the bills that would permit the satellite TV companies to offer local service from neighboring markets. The broadcasters hate out of market service because it gives consumers the option of watching the same programming on another network. This means no one is watching their advertising, and the broadcaster is making no money.

It would probably require an overwhemingly show of support from voters across the country to get this kind of provision put into the bill. I'd start by calling your Senators an Representative and telling them you want it.


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> On the flip side, since all of the digital stations (except PBS) come from either PA or NY, does that mean that ALL of NJ is a white area??????


The answer is no. A white area is defined as not being able to receive an adequate signal from a broadcaster. You can be in a white area for ABC, but then again receive an adequate picture from NBC. In some cases you could receive an adequate signal from more than one broadcaster of the same network. The boundaries of a state or a DMA play no role in the determination. A consumers will only be eligible for a distant digital signal if they cannot get an adequate over the air signal from any local affiliate of that network in their area.


----------



## Guesst925XTU (Jan 29, 2004)

So will Ocean County, NJ and Mercer County, NJ FINALLY be able to get both NYC & Philadelphia on DBS?

Rignt now cable has a strangle hold on both counties because cable offers ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, WB from BOTH NYC and Philadelphia and DBS can not legally do so.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

dallas_axelrod said:


> I haven't seen language in any of the bills that would permit the satellite TV companies to offer local service from neighboring markets. The broadcasters hate out of market service because it gives consumers the option of watching the same programming on another network. This means no one is watching their advertising, and the broadcaster is making no money.
> 
> It would probably require an overwhemingly show of support from voters across the country to get this kind of provision put into the bill. I'd start by calling your Senators an Representative and telling them you want it.


It is my understanding that some versions of the bill disussed "significantly viewed" stations.


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

Guesst925XTU said:


> So will Ocean County, NJ and Mercer County, NJ FINALLY be able to get both NYC & Philadelphia on DBS?
> 
> Rignt now cable has a strangle hold on both counties because cable offers ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, WB from BOTH NYC and Philadelphia and DBS can not legally do so.


You'll need to figure out under what authority the cable company is providing these out-of-market channels. If the stations are being carried persuant to the significantly viewed rules for cable (most likely), then DBS companies would be able to offer the same channels, if Congress includes the significantly viewed provisions in whatever bill it passes.


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> It is my understanding that some versions of the bill disussed "significantly viewed" stations.


You're correct, but the authority suggested by Mark Holtz in his comment is more broad than that which would be permitted under significantly viewed. Here's the rule of thumb on signficantly viewed stations: If the cable company in your town is offering a broadcast station that's not available from your satellite TV provider, then the cable company is most likely offering that channel under the signficantly viewed provision. Once the satellite home viewer act legislation passes (this year or next), satellite TV companies will be able to offer these missing channels. But you should not expect your satellite TV provider to offer any additional channels not available from your local cable operator today.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

That is not quite what you said originally. But----- peace.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

dallas_axelrod said:


> You're correct, but the authority suggested by Mark Holtz in his comment is more broad than that which would be permitted under significantly viewed.


Hey, one can hope, can't they?  And thus, I write my congresscritter.

I know that there are people who have "moved" in order to get better locals or to get the New York or LA Network feeds. There are people now living in Sacramento who used to live in the Bay Area. So, require them to subscribe to the Sacramento locals since it is their "home market", and make the neighboring market a subscribable option at an additional cost.

I know... wishful thinking. But, it may get the "significantly viewed" portion passed.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Okay...here is the way I read the bill (This is the text I'm reading http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/s2644amended.pdf)

*Name*
The bill is called the SHVERCADTA (and this is the short title!)
"Satellite Home Viewer's Extension and Rural Consumer Access to Digital Television Act of 2004)

*Duration*
The Bill is effective through the END of 2009 (Dec. 31)

*One Dish for locals*
All TV stations from any one market must be carried on one satellite dish. Notice this did NOT say that EVERYthing had to be on one dish, just the local channels.

Also notice it does not say "from one satellite location". It says "single reception antenna and associated equipment." This IMHO means that if you have a superdish (1 reception antenna and associated equipment) Dish could spread out the channels over three satellite locations quite legally!

If the satellite carrier has Digital TV stations from a market, all Digital TV stations from a particular TV market have to be on a single dish as well, but not necessarily the same dish as the analog stations from that market.

*Compliance with 1-dish rule*
Dish has 18 months from the enactment of this bill to put each local market on one dish. Again, remember all the locals have to be on the same dish. It does not mean that a second dish may not be required for all local from your area.

Violations would mount PER market PER day. This means that if dish has 10 markets on two dishes and they let a week go by after the deadline to "fix it", that's 70 violations they racked up!

*Distant Channels*
Still 2 distant channels of each network max per day plus local network station are allowed. But this bill allows up to two distant network DIGITAL TV stations.

*Eligibility*
Qualifications remain the same as in the SHVIA for distant analog signals. (This is a REAL surprise! I love it!)

For Digital TV stations it gives the FCC 2 years from enactment to come up with a predictive reception model and takes into account TV stations that are not providing signal due to "economic reasons". If a station isn't using the licensed ERP and not reching a certain area, that station loses the households it could have counted as theirs.

Until the FCC figures out the Digital stations, anyone eligible for distant analog channels right now, will be eligible for distant digital networks.

*Local into Local (LIL)*
In order to carry local digital network station in any given market, it has to carry the local analog stations. (?) (the wording is quite weird so I may have misinterpreted this)

The paragraph is goblty-****... I THINK it means that if you have distant digital channels and the locals become available, the satellite carrier has to let you know and give you 120 days notice that you will lose the distant digital networks.

*Additional "Outside" stations eligibility*
If a particular station is the ONLY network station in that state as of 1/1/95, it can be sold in the entire state regardless of TV market definitions. The additional TV households in question CAN NOT be in a top 50 TV market. (WMUR, New Hampshire law ).

*Significantly Viewed additional locals to neighboring markets*
Satellite companise may carry network channels to counties OUTSIDE that station's market as long as it is in the same state and there was another carrier (Cable) carrying that channel to the county in question. This is 100% up to the DBS provider. It does not mean they have to offer the channel outside the local market.

But this means that if a cable company carries a particular network channel in a county DBS can do it too but only as long as the station and county in question are in the same state! Sorry Baltimore...no DC for you.

*Don't forget about Alaska*
All subscribers in Alaska outside the Anchorage, Firbanks and Juneau TV market areas (which is most of the state) are eligible for locals from one of the three locals mentioned above. AND the carrier MUST have at least one of these markets available within two years of enactment.

Satellite companies that have more than one market in Alaska (like Dish) can divide the state as they see fit, but each area of the state will only qualify for one market or another.

The FCC will come up with "must carry" rules for stations outside defined TV markets within one year of enactment

Once Alaskans had their "locals", they cannot have distant networks...PERIOD. No waivers, no appeals. Alaskans will only be allowed to get Alaska channels. DirecTV will have to offer some Alaska TV market within 2 years or enactment.

*DISCLAIMER*
This is the way I read this document. It may not be what it really means. Lots of housekeeping details not discussed in the above synopsis.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Not a bad summary, Tony, here's a few additional notes ...

1) Distants have been extended from Dec 31st 2004 to 2009, the rest of the law will remain in effect far beyond then (no expiration date unless specifically added - negotiating in Good Faith expires January 1st, 2010  )

2) Note that with distants you are allowed 2 of each network whether analog or digital. EG: You can have two analog NBCs, two digital NBCs, or one of each as distants. You cannot have three (two analogs and a digital or an analog and two digitals) nor four (two of each). Some people will be losing CBS-HD or other distants. (This is odd because that limit is being written into the statutory license part of the law, but statutory licenses do not apply to digital.)
BTW: Locals will now be SPECIFICALLY allowed in addition to any distants one can get. 

3) Digital rules "provide that any network station that would be expected to serve a household but is not serving that household due to non-economic circumstances beyond its control will be deemed to be serving such a household;" - Which means if they can't cover an area due to any non-economic reason distant digitals still may not be available. 

4) The LIL restriction is that they MUST offer LIL service to a market before offering distant digitals ... and if local OTA digitals extend to an area, they MUST stop providing digital distants within 120 days. Note it is written as "digital", not HD. If your local gets a SD digital signal up to whatever standard the FCC sets - or cannot due to non-economic reasons (such as the FCC refusing a license on the basis of interference) the HD distants will not be available. 

5) Gerryrigged rules for a single network station state, and a state with more than one network station FOR ELIGIBLE COUNTIES. This is one to take a good look at, because the new 47USC340 has the counties defined as:
"For purposes of this subsection, the term 'eligible county' means any 1 of 4 counties that (A) are in a single State; (B) on January 1,2004,were in local markets principally comprised of counties in another State; and (C) had a combined total of 41,340 television households according to the U.S. Television Household Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2003-2004."​So find four counties with 41,340 total television households and you will have found the ONLY four counties in the US that this section applies to. 
And the "Significantly Viewed" language is also in this Sec340, which is only "eligible counties". More than Baltimore/DC are eliminated from that one ...

6) All Alaskan stations (a non-contiguous state with more than one market) must be carried. The statutory license NO LONGER APPLIES for stations outside of Alaska once they have Alaskan stations. They have even made that a banner headline in the bill!
NO IMPORTATION OF DISTANT TELEVISION STATIONS IN ALASKA AFTER LOCAL-TO-LOCAL IS AVAILABLE.

7) Vehicles now include boats and airplanes. Not a bad addition. 

8) Not sure what sponsorship ID rules in 47 CFR 76.1615, but it looks like we will be seeing more of who is paying for time on the channels.

And that's my quick skim, done by downloading the current USC sections and making the edits as instructed in the bill.

JL


----------



## jagec82 (Jul 26, 2004)

Hi all. I'm a longtime reader, but a first time poster.

Anyhow, I was surprised by the "significantly viewed" section which stated that the stations had to be in the state.

I live about half-way between Boston and Providence, but reside in the Boston DMA. The cable companies here provide both Boston and Providence, RI stations. Why wouldn't this bill allow the satellite providers to do the same, solely because they are in another state?


----------



## splish (Nov 7, 2002)

Re Alaska, it sounds like 'white' areas in Alaska will be able to view only Alaskan stations, whereas white areas anywhere else will be able to view out of state distants. Seems odd.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I am curious as to why Alaska is treated differently. I would guess that the Alaskan stations worked for this. It is an unusual case but I really don't know where I stand on this. Any comment from the Alaskans among us?


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> I am curious as to why Alaska is treated differently. I would guess that the Alaskan stations worked for this. It is an unusual case but I really don't know where I stand on this. Any comment from the Alaskans among us?


Geronimo, I'm going to make some phone calls today and try to get someone to explain the changes about Alaska to me in English. I just wish they could find someway for me to get DirecTV or be able to get 110 and 119 on Dish more affordably


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

As I say there may be explanations here that are not readily apparent. But on the surface it sounds unfair to Alaskans. Perhaps the majority of Alaskans would prefer Alaskan stations to NY or LA. But why not let you choose as other citizens do?


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Lurker,

I have a problem with some of the interpretations, but okay I'll live with that. 

HOWEVER 

I don't see in the bill where it says that ALL stations in Alaska must be carried. 
-I see where is says that any satellite company with more than 5 million subscribers must provide at least one TV market. 
-I see where it says that any areas not part of a DMA in Alaska is eligible to receive any single TV market from Alaska. 
-And satellite companies that carry more than one Alaska market (like Dish will when it adds Fairbanks) can divide the areas outside the DMAs as they see fit. But any one area can only qualify for one set of locals. 
-Finally I see where congress directs the FCC to set up must carry rules for stations currently NOT inside any DMA to be included with the locals available in that region via satellite.

Could you point me to the part that says that all Alaska TV stations must be carried?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

SAEMike said:


> Geronimo, I'm going to make some phone calls today and try to get someone to explain the changes about Alaska to me in English. I just wish they could find someway for me to get DirecTV or be able to get 110 and 119 on Dish more affordably


Well it sounds like DirecTV will HAVE to serve some part of the state but I am not sure what they will offer or whether it suits you.

I was hoping for at least access to Baltimore locals. It sounds like the folks in the Maryland DC suburbs might get them but those of us in DC itself or across the river will not.

Tanks Tony for your help with this. While the situation may be confusing you have made it a little less so.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Well it sounds like DirecTV will HAVE to serve some part of the state but I am not sure what they will offer or whether it suits you.


They already "serve" the state, the problem is that it costs over $1,000 for the size dish you need and the installation for the dish.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

dallas_axelrod said:


> The answer is no. A white area is defined as not being able to receive an adequate signal from a broadcaster. You can be in a white area for ABC, but then again receive an adequate picture from NBC. In some cases you could receive an adequate signal from more than one broadcaster of the same network. The boundaries of a state or a DMA play no role in the determination. A consumers will only be eligible for a distant digital signal if they cannot get an adequate over the air signal from any local affiliate of that network in their area.


According to antennaweb.org, I can't get ANY digital stations in Southeastern Monmouth County, NJ except for a PBS station out of New Brunswick, NJ that is 22 miles away (I'm 1/2 mile from Ocean County). 45 miles as the crow flies for NYC and 62 miles for Philly, but rabbit ears got nothing on analog stations. I don't expect much better on digital stations.

Before I shell out bucks for a 5 foot wide antenna or some other roof based monstrosity, I'd like to try and get a grip on WHAT this bill will actually give us..........


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Guesst925XTU said:


> So will Ocean County, NJ and Mercer County, NJ FINALLY be able to get both NYC & Philadelphia on DBS?
> 
> Rignt now cable has a strangle hold on both counties because cable offers ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, WB from BOTH NYC and Philadelphia and DBS can not legally do so.


Ditto for Southeastern Monmouth County.........


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Since the other station has to be from your state I would say that New Jersey is in the same boat as DC. You can't get the other sstaions because they broadcast from another state. 

State rights notwithstanding I dont think that modern media markets follow state lines. So why introduce that limitation?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

SAEMike said:


> They already "serve" the state, the problem is that it costs over $1,000 for the size dish you need and the installation for the dish.


I guess I was not clear. I meant with locals. It is my undertanding (maybe erroneous) that they will HAVE to carry one of your markets butt hat they do not now. I am unsure whether they offer a "free dish" if you sub to locals.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Final post for now. How are superstatiosn treated in this version of the legislation? That was unclear to me.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

TNGTony said:


> Lurker,
> 
> I have a problem with some of the interpretations, but okay I'll live with that.


As do I, the one that got me though was:



justalurker said:


> 2) Note that with distants you are allowed 2 of each network whether analog or digital. EG: You can have two analog NBCs, two digital NBCs, or one of each as distants. You cannot have three (two analogs and a digital or an analog and two digitals) nor four (two of each). Some people will be losing CBS-HD or other distants.


I believe you misread that, or read more into that than I did, as whenever I read that part of the bill, I read that you can only have a maximum of 2 analog signals for a particular network, and a maximum of two digital signals for a particular network if that network is not part of your local market.

I originally thought the same as you on this part, but I reread it several times very clearly as I have both E&W feeds of ABC, and looking forward to when ABC HD is uplinked to DirecTV.

~Alan


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Sorry to me self-centric, but what does this mean for NJ subscribers? NO digital stations for us vis DBS due to the fact that only WOR out of Secaucus (UPN) and PBS transmits from NJ?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Final post for now. How are superstatiosn treated in this version of the legislation? That was unclear to me.


I didn't read the entire bill, just parts that I saw that interested me, however, I think they still stay the exact same way.

~Alan


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

BobMurdoch - in your case - nothing. Ig you want HDTV, get on cable or put upthe big OTA antenna.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> Okay...here is the way I read the bill (This is the text I'm reading http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/s2644amended.pdf)
> 
> *Additional "Outside" stations eligibility*
> If a particular station is the ONLY network station in that state as of 1/1/95, it can be sold in the entire state regardless of TV market definitions. The additional TV households in question CAN NOT be in a top 50 TV market. (WMUR, New Hampshire law ).
> ...


 I didn't see this before, but it looks like I dont have to worry about significantly viewed with this part in place, since there is only 1 Fox and 1 NBC Network in Maryland (out of baltimore), and the Salisbury DMA is #149.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> I didn't read the entire bill, just parts that I saw that interested me, however, I think they still stay the exact same way.
> 
> ~Alan


I ask because in some other versions WB and UPN would be handled like the other nets. That is great news for a DirecTV sub who has no WB or UPN affilaite but not so great for a DISH sub that likes the superstations.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> I ask because in some other versions WB and UPN would be handled like the other nets. That is great news for a DirecTV sub who has no WB or UPN affilaite but not so great for a DISH sub that likes the superstations.


As a DirecTV subscriber with NO OTA WB! nearby, I would like to see that VERY much! However, I don't remember hearing that ANY of the other versions having that mentioned, just that people expected them to before they were introduced.

~Alan


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

As far as I can tell, the superstations are unaffected. The same rules apply until 2010.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> As a DirecTV subscriber with NO OTA WB! nearby, I would like to see that VERY much! However, I don't remember hearing that ANY of the other versions having that mentioned, just that people expected them to before they were introduced.
> 
> ~Alan


I would suggest looking at the threads here and over at DBS Forums. There is alot of discussion about it. Some of it involves DTV's plans for becoming an affiliate of UPN and WB and putting their own syndex proof programming on.

If you need links PM me and I will try to find them but a search should do it for you. But here is one link. take a looka t Post 5. http://www.dbsforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36883&highlight=superstations


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> I would suggest looking at the threads here and over at DBS DOrums. There is alot of discussion about it. Some of it involves DTV's plans for becoming an affiliate of UPN and WB and putting their own syndex proof programming on.


Yep! I've read that already, and I'm anxious for it to come true, but it may be that you can only get it when you subscribe to your locals, and if your locals are not available, you may have to wait until they do before you can get it! 

~Alan


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

All I ever said---or meant to---was that they would be handled like the other networks. 

So if tehre is no WB or UPN affiliate in your DMA you could get a WB or UPN "distant net". It woudl not be necessary for DirecTV to carry your locals. Just like it is not necessary now to get ome or more of the other nets as a distant net. 

Having said all taht I have read this bill and cant quite figure out what it saying about the superstations and/or WB/UPN. So i will take Tony's word for it as he is more knowledgeable in this area than I am by a wide measure.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> All I ever said---or meant to---was that they would be handled like the other networks.


I know, but I remember there being some talk before the reauthorization of SHVIA got under way that the WB! and UPN might become "full fledged" networks, but from what I have read, so far none of the bills that could be used for SHVIA have regarded either station as a "full fledged" network. If they did, it would mean some good things for those in DMAs without them, but it would also mean bad things for people who have them in their DMA, but like the "Superstations". Me, I would have no problem getting a national WB! network as (I think) the closest non "cable-only" WB! is in the Jacksonville, FL DMA, and the next would probably be Atlanta. I do have a UPN affiliate in my DMA... sorta! It's, well, read what TNGTony says about the UPN affiliate in the Albany, GA market on Dish Locals In 141 Cities.



Geronimo said:


> So if tehre is no WB or UPN affiliate in your DMA you could get a WB or UPN "distant net". It woudl not be necessary for DirecTV to carry your locals. Just like it is not necessary now to get ome or more of the other nets as a distant net.


According to Dan Collins on DBSForums.com, at least what I got out of his comments on WB! and UPN on DirecTV is that they are trying to do their own version to stick in markets without a WB! or UPN affiliate. Since the WB! and UPN are not treated as "equal" networks with the rest of the big four, I don't believe that (under the current rules of SHVIA) DirecTV could offer the WB! and UPN like they currently do with the other distant networks.

~Alan


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I suggest that you read ALL the threads Alan. You are correct that DirecTV cannot so this now. But you are incorrect about what SOME of the other versions of the reauthorization have said. The other threads specifically state that the WB and UPN would be treated like the other networks.

In fact here is a quote from one of Mr. Collins posts from 5/10/04

"The better solution is the one in the current draft of the SHVERA - WB and UPN would be classified as networks, making them subject to the same rules as ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC. The superstations would cease to exist "

and later in the same thread he responded to why this is better (in his view) than the superstations and how little current law woudl ned to be changed

The definition of UPN and WB as networks does not require any explicit ammendments - if they don't change the definition of a network in the current legislation, simply re-enacting the bill will make WB and UPN (as well as Univision, and perhaps Telemundo) networks. All they need to do is update the date in one clause Article 47.

"Once WB and UPN get defined as networks, as with any network, if you do not receive a Grade B or better OTA signal from an affiliate of that network you are NOT SERVED by that network. What may be available on cable is irrelevant. Likewise, if a major network affiliate carries some programming that is also carried on UPN or WB, that has no effect on your qualification. The station in question might be an CBS affiliate carrying some UPN programming, but it is NOT an UPN affiliate, therefore you are unserved by UPN.

Why this is better: superstations are subject to SYNDEX, which, if claimed by local stations, could make the channel either useless, or so expensive to provide that the provider is disincented to do so. As a network affiliate, the laws are clear, and the importation of a distant network to qualified viewers is not subject to any program by program exceptions. "

I do not believe that there was ANY Senate version then. This is a reference to a House bill.

The full thread is at http://www.dbsforums.com/vbulletin/...35526&perpage=15&highlight=shvia&pagenumber=3

There are other threads that are similar. I would also suggest reading the House bill. It is somewhat easier to read than the Senate versions. At least I think it is.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> I suggest that you read ALL the threads Alan. You are correct that DirecTV cannot so this now. But you are incorrect about what SOME of the other versions of the reauthorization have said. The other threads specifically state that the WB and UPN would be treated like the other networks.
> 
> There are other threads that are similar. I would also suggest reading the House bill. It is somewhat easier to read than the Senate versions. At least I think it is.


Actually, I have read that before, I just forgot about it. Another thing is that I don't even know how many versions of this bill there are! I mean, don't get me wrong, I've been following all the versions, it's just that when all of them are similar, and nobody knows which one will pass, it's not hard (for me anyway) to lose them in the crowd. Still, I'm not going to hold my breath until I get WB! programming... at least not yet! 

~Alan


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

As far as I know ther is one house version and now two senate versions. The house bill woudl treat them like the other networks. I can't tell about the Senate bills but I note that Tony seems pretty sure that the current situation would continue and that he is a pretty good source.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> I have a problem with some of the interpretations, but okay I'll live with that.


That's OK ... with this legalese I'm not sure I agree with my own interpretations.


TNGTony said:


> Could you point me to the part that says that all Alaska TV stations must be carried?


It's probably just my reading. I see it in:
"retransmit the analog and digital signals of each television broadcast station located in any local market within a State that is not part of the contiguous United States and that contains more than one television market."​If it were worded "any one local market" I'd agree with you, but the way it is worded is to carry the analog AND DIGITAL signals of EACH broadcast station in ANY local market (in that state).
"The retransmissions of such stations shall be made available to substantially all of the satellite carrier's subscribers in each station's local market, and the retransmissions of the stations in at least one market in the state shall be made available to substantially all of the satellite carrier's subscribers in areas of the State that are not within a designated market area."​And that is where we read LIL within markets and at least one market's stations in non-designated areas. Although I don't read a prohibition to providing more than one market's stations to those outside of a market. (Those outside of a market in Alaska could get more than one market's locals ... but the DBS provider is only required to provide one market's channels to non-designated areas.)

Then again, there won't be any "non-designated" areas if Section 122(j)(1)(D) of title 17, United States Code, is added and followed:"Any census area, borough, or other area in the State of Alaska that is outside of a designated market area,as determined by Nielsen Media Research,shall be deemed to be part of one of the local markets in the State of Alaska. A satellite carrier may determine which local market in the State of Alaska will be deemed to be the relevant local market in connection with each subscriber in such census area, borough, or other area."​ So every location in Alaska will be in a local market. :grin: Maybe we need a ambulance chasing trial lawyer to sort this all out for us. 

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> whenever I read that part of the bill, I read that you can only have a maximum of 2 analog signals for a particular network, and a maximum of two digital signals for a particular network if that network is not part of your local market.


 As noted, I'm not sure I agree with myself. The limit two is odd. The plain text (HA!) of the new 47USC339(a)(1) seems to allow two of each mode per network, but there is a modification to the statutory license in Section 119 of title 17,United States Code, as amended on page 12 starting at line 10:"(2) 2-NETWORK STATION RULE APPLIES WITHOUT REGARD TO TYPE OF SIGNALS."​ It is all in chickenscratch, but if the edits have the same meaning as the heading there is an overall limit of two.

And now my headache is complete. :grin: Legalese sells asprin and other pain killers. :lol:

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*'SEC. 340. CARRIAGE OF TELEVISION SIGNALS TO CERTAIN SUBSCRIBERS.*
(a) CARRIAGE OF HOME-STATE TELEVISION SIGNALS TO SUBSCRIBERS IN CERTAIN COUNTIES.
(1) IN GENERAL.- A multichannel video programming distributor may elect to retransmit, to subscribers in an eligible county 
(A) any television broadcast stations that are located in the State in which the county is located and that any multichannel video programming distributor was retransmitting to subscribers in the county on January 1, 2004; or 
(B) up to 2 television broadcast stations located in the State in which the county is located,if the number of television broadcast stations that the multichannel video programming distributor is authorized to carry under subparagraph (A) is less than 3.
(C) DEEMED SIGNIFICANTLY VIEWED.
Any station described in subparagraph (A) is deemed to be significantly viewed in the eligible county within the meaning of section 76.54 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R.76.54).

(2) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE COUNTY.- For purposes of this subsection,the term 'eligible county' means any 1 of 4 counties that 
(A) are in a single State;
(B) on January 1, 2004, were in local markets principally comprised of counties in another State; and 
(C) had a combined total of 41,340 television households according to the U.S. Television Household Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2003-2004.

(3) LIMITATION.- Carriage of a station under this section shall be at the option of the multichannel video programming distributor.

This new section is the source of much of the discussion about in state carriage and "significantly viewed" ... but I'd like to point out that the entire section relies on "eligible counties", and those four counties are defined in the new 47USC340(a)(2).

Unless you are talking about counties that meet that very narrow definition, this new section will not apply. :grin:

BTW: All of my recent posts are in reference to s2644 ... The house reported bill and other versions seem to be better.

JL


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Here's my situation with the WB. The local cable station just got a WB cable only station, it's not OTA. The local ABC station brokered the deal because they have the rights to the WB. Would this bill allow me to get a WB superstation?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

IF yopu have DISH you can get a superstarion now. But if the status of the supers is changed (which is a big IF) then you would lose that right. Cable only channels do not qualify for must carry. But if there is no WB affiliate I would think that you would qualify foir a WB "distant net" . I am not trying to be confusing. But it might be.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> IF yopu have DISH you can get a superstarion now. But if the status of the supers is changed (which is a big IF) then you would lose that right. Cable only channels do not qualify for must carry. But if there is no WB affiliate I would think that you would qualify foir a WB "distant net" . I am not trying to be confusing. But it might be.


That's the problem is that I can't get the WB now because of the ABC station that has the rights to the WB (But no OTA WB station) I don't qualify for the WB superstations.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Then it appears that the House bill is better for you on this point. It would give you the WB as a distant net. The syndex argument would not apply.

As I said before I have a hard time analyzing the language in the Senate versions. But if Tony is correct the status quo would prevail on that particular point.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

The UPN station here is carried on cable, but is also available OTA in a digital format. Would the fact that its available OTA digitally, prevent me from getting an analog distant UPN network, even though its not transmitted in analog and I can't recieve the digital signal because I don't have a digital tuner?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Marvin said:


> The UPN station here is carried on cable, but is also available OTA in a digital format. Would the fact that its available OTA digitally, prevent me from getting an analog distant UPN network, even though its not transmitted in analog and I can't recieve the digital signal because I don't have a digital tuner?


I believe that at this time, "digital" does not count. If you can't get a UPN "analog" signal "Grade B" or better, you would be eligible if the rules were to allow it, which is still in question.

~Alan


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

How about my situation. I have a LP CA UPN station that isn't grade B for me but I do have access to it on D*. Would I still be considered unserved since I can't get a good single via OTA?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

In the House bill you would be consiodered served since your provider carries a local UPN. According to the excellent summary in Post #40 above the qualification for distant nets in at least THIS Seante version is the same as SHVIA. So you are not "served". Complicated enough?


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I sure would like to have Enterprise in HD.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I would like a date with jolene Blaylock. But wishing won't make it happen.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SParker said:


> I sure would like to have Enterprise in HD.


I sure would like to have "Enterprise" in SD or HD. I can only pick up my local (sorta) UPN affiliate between the hours of 12:00 til 6:00. I was able to watch "Enterprise" on there once though, and enjoyed it very much!

~Alan


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> I believe that at this time, "digital" does not count. If you can't get a UPN "analog" signal "Grade B" or better, you would be eligible if the rules were to allow it, which is still in question.


The new rules will apparently include digital, and if you can receive digital (not HD, just digital) at the level to be defined later you can't get the distant.

BTW: The qualification for distants doesn't take into account what one owns or doesn't own, so not owning a digital tuner wouldn't be an issue.

Read carefully ... the bill says "digital television" ... NOT HD.

JL


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

justalurker said:


> The new rules will apparently include digital, and if you can receive digital (not HD, just digital) at the level to be defined later you can't get the distant.
> 
> BTW: The qualification for distants doesn't take into account what one owns or doesn't own, so not owning a digital tuner wouldn't be an issue.


I think I'm going to either have to stop talking about this bill, because (and granted, I did "scan" alot of it) I don't remember reading that part, and I'm kind of shocked that they would include it! Is this the Ensign/McCain bill that you're talking about?!

~Alan


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

justalurker said:


> The new rules will apparently include digital, and if you can receive digital (not HD, just digital) at the level to be defined later you can't get the distant.
> 
> BTW: The qualification for distants doesn't take into account what one owns or doesn't own, so not owning a digital tuner wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> ...


 If you don't have a digital tuner and a station is only transmited OTA digitally, then you can't get the signal OTA and you should be able to get analog distants, or at least thats how I would see it.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Dish could offer the SuperStations in HD... That would be cool for markets like mine without local WB (and low power) UPN.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Marvin said:


> If you don't have a digital tuner and a station is only transmited OTA digitally, then you can't get the signal OTA and you should be able to get analog distants, or at least thats how I would see it.


Who's fault is it that you can't receive the signal? Under current analog rules the definition of Grade B is based on an outdoor antenna 30ft above the ground. Should I be able to refuse to buy an outdoor antenna and still get distants? Following your logic, the answer would be yes --- but the law says no.

If the digital SIGNAL does not reach your house (to the yet to be determined standard) then you have an issue. But if you can't receive the signal merrily because you have failed to purchase the proper equipment (either an outdoor antenna for Grade B analog or an outoor antenna and DT tuner for Grade TBD digital) it would be crazy to take it out on the broadcaster.

Or should DT tuners be provided for all households? Free of charge, of course, the government will just raise your taxes $1000 per year to pay for your tuner boxes. 

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike123abc said:


> Dish could offer the SuperStations in HD... That would be cool for markets like mine without local WB (and low power) UPN.


I'd like to see that option.

JL


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

justalurker said:


> 5) Gerryrigged rules for a single network station state, and a state with more than one network station FOR ELIGIBLE COUNTIES. This is one to take a good look at, because the new 47USC340 has the counties defined as:
> "For purposes of this subsection, the term 'eligible county' means any 1 of 4 counties that (A) are in a single State; (B) on January 1,2004,were in local markets principally comprised of counties in another State; and (C) had a combined total of 41,340 television households according to the U.S. Television Household Estimates by Nielsen Media Research for 2003-2004."​So find four counties with 41,340 total television households and you will have found the ONLY four counties in the US that this section applies to.
> And the "Significantly Viewed" language is also in this Sec340, which is only "eligible counties". More than Baltimore/DC are eliminated from that one ...


The bill appears to allow consumers in Oregon that live in a DMA which does not provide any local Oregon content (there are four counties like this in the state) will be able to receive up to two channels that carry local Oregon content from neighboring DMAs. Also, any significantly viewed stations that are provided into one of these four counties will count against the two permitted channels as long as the significantly viewed stations provides local content.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

dallas_axelrod said:


> The bill appears to allow consumers in Oregon that live in a DMA which does not provide any local Oregon content (there are four counties like this in the state) will be able to receive up to two channels that carry local Oregon content from neighboring DMAs. Also, any significantly viewed stations that are provided into one of these four counties will count against the two permitted channels as long as the significantly viewed stations provides local content.


Wow is that astoundingly bad. Guess I have no chance of ever being a CT resident and getting CT channels (Fairfield County = NYC DMA)


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

hancox said:


> Wow is that astoundingly bad. Guess I have no chance of ever being a CT resident and getting CT channels (Fairfield County = NYC DMA)


The significantly viewed provisions in the satellite TV bill might allow you to receive New York and Connecticut locals. In general, the bill allows satellite TV providers to offer locals from neighboring markets if at least a minimum percentage of people in the county watch the channel over the air. In general, if the CT channels are provided by your local cable company, then DBS would be able to offer the service once the bill passes.

The specifics provision above concerning Oregon would give consumers another way of receiving Oregon locals besides just through the significantly viewed provisions.


----------

