DirecTV to Launch Significantly Viewed DMA service
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 282
- Views 71K
- Status
Over the last year or so, they've called a couple of times trying to sell me something and I've called them several times asking where my $100 rebate for the HR10-250 that I got in August was. Each time, I'd always ask about SV and no one knew anything about it. The last one I talked to, was in Customer Retention, and after she finally gave me $100 credit, I asked about SV. She didn't know anything about it. When I tried to explain it to her, she said it had to do with HD. I said it didn't, she said it did, so I thanked her for the $100 credit and hung up.jhamps10 said:
I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Stand up to this!!!
This is a AWSOME idea. We should put together a petion and have the people here sign it!!
Good luck. The FCC is in the pocket of NAB. The locals would say that if everyone was able to watch stations out of market then they would suffer loss of advertising $ and thus local news and programming would suffer.
The FCC makes NO LAWS they can only inforce laws passed by congress.
We need to put this sites might behind these issues and start MASSIVE e-mail campains to congress!!!
mikedz4 said:
This is a AWSOME idea. We should put together a petion and have the people here sign it!!
Good luck. The FCC is in the pocket of NAB. The locals would say that if everyone was able to watch stations out of market then they would suffer loss of advertising $ and thus local news and programming would suffer.
The FCC makes NO LAWS they can only inforce laws passed by congress.
We need to put this sites might behind these issues and start MASSIVE e-mail campains to congress!!!
that's why i said we need to write our people in congress and tell them we are upset nothing is happening in regards to the legislation they passed last year about significantly viewed local stations on satellite television stations and tell them we want something done NOW!!!! It's been over a year and nothing has happened yet and it looks like nothing is going to happen. It looks like the broadcasters are forcing the FCC and Satellite companies to NOT broadcast their stations outside the local DMAs despite congress allowing the FCC and Satellite companies to do so. So it's time for us to tell Congress we are FED UP with the NAB's tactics.
Hoping this goes right first try....
Either Directv or Dish with a question to try understanding significantly viewed stations. I live in Pike County Pa. The zip is 18428 shared by parts of Pike County and parts of Wayne County which has a few PA stations listed in the www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/shvera.doc along with some DMA stations from NY,NY. The PA stations are presently offered on Directv but not in zip 18428. DMA says we are NY, NY sort of a joke. So the only stations they allow is NY, NY. The reason I believe is the cable company carries both at least NY and PA and we have a large weekend crowd which distorts DMA. No Native wants NY,NY
The separation for NY,NY or Scranton/WB is even within the zip code 18428. For Dish and Directv the split is not even as some parts of the zip code are NY,NY while the same part is Scranton/WB for the other service. Can even find more subtle errors. Yet both say they by law cannot provide Scranton/WB stations even though the FCC document says they can.
If the stations are already on Directv and Dish in the adjacent area to us what is the reason Directv, or Dish for that matter, refuses to give us access to significantly viewed channels. The only change seems to throw the switch as the signals are now present.
thanks
john
Either Directv or Dish with a question to try understanding significantly viewed stations. I live in Pike County Pa. The zip is 18428 shared by parts of Pike County and parts of Wayne County which has a few PA stations listed in the www.fcc.gov/mb/policy/shvera.doc along with some DMA stations from NY,NY. The PA stations are presently offered on Directv but not in zip 18428. DMA says we are NY, NY sort of a joke. So the only stations they allow is NY, NY. The reason I believe is the cable company carries both at least NY and PA and we have a large weekend crowd which distorts DMA. No Native wants NY,NY
The separation for NY,NY or Scranton/WB is even within the zip code 18428. For Dish and Directv the split is not even as some parts of the zip code are NY,NY while the same part is Scranton/WB for the other service. Can even find more subtle errors. Yet both say they by law cannot provide Scranton/WB stations even though the FCC document says they can.
If the stations are already on Directv and Dish in the adjacent area to us what is the reason Directv, or Dish for that matter, refuses to give us access to significantly viewed channels. The only change seems to throw the switch as the signals are now present.
thanks
john
I think this was asked before without any answer, but might the impending UPN/WB merger have anything to do with the holdup?
FWIW, the D* SV query page (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/see/SvChannels.jsp), which had been returning null results whenever I looked at it for the past several weeks, appears to be working once again. The only "new" SV-ness I saw while poking around last night was the expansion of WCAX, WNNE, WFFF, and VPT (CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS out of Burlington) to Vermont counties in the Albany and Boston markets, a change that had been partially noted earlier in this thread
I doubt it. The rumor is that in-market locals are fussing, and that the lawyers are finding the FCC regs to be less effective than had been hoped.
I quit holding my breath for SV awhile back. I caved and connected an external antenna for when I want/need to watch some of the stations I should be getting via SV. PQ isn't that great, and it's not recordable on my old D* Tivo....but it's sufficient for getting winter storm information, for example.
I still find the implications for "moving" to be intriguing, if D* ever rolls out SV to the full extent permitted by The List.... but now I'll be shocked if it ever does happen.
charper1 said:
I doubt it. The rumor is that in-market locals are fussing, and that the lawyers are finding the FCC regs to be less effective than had been hoped.
I quit holding my breath for SV awhile back. I caved and connected an external antenna for when I want/need to watch some of the stations I should be getting via SV. PQ isn't that great, and it's not recordable on my old D* Tivo....but it's sufficient for getting winter storm information, for example.
I still find the implications for "moving" to be intriguing, if D* ever rolls out SV to the full extent permitted by The List.... but now I'll be shocked if it ever does happen.
Last edited:
from www.skyreport.com on March 6, 2006
Broadcasters Take on Significantly-Viewed
Broadcasters approached the Federal Communications Commission late last week concerning a push by DirecTV and EchoStar to get the agency to re-think regulations tied to satellite delivery of significantly-viewed TV stations, telling those at the Portals that the DBS services' arguments don't hold water.
The satellite TV companies petitioned the FCC earlier this year with issues about the rules governing delivery of significantly-viewed stations. They asked the commission to reconsider what they said is a narrow interpretation of the local service requirement contained in the regulations. The companies said they are pushing for an interpretation that will prevent local network affiliate stations from blocking carriage of significantly-viewed analog signals.
The significantly-viewed provisions are contained in the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA).
In their joint arguments, broadcasters tackled the satellite TV companies' objection to an FCC requirement that before a subscriber can receive an analog signal of an out-of-market significantly-viewed station affiliated with a particular network the subscriber must first receive the analog signal of a local station affiliated with that network.
What the satellite TV companies want, the broadcasters said, "is a regulatory-imposed advantage over local stations in retransmission consent negotiations. But the commission correctly recognized that SHVERA was intended not to enhance the negotiating leverage of either broadcasters or satellite carriers, but rather to protect localism and to prevent satellite carriers from by-passing local stations or using the threat of delivery of out-of-market stations to extract more favorable retransmission consent terms."
Broadcast affiliate associations participating in the FCC filing represent stations carrying ABC, CBS and NBC. The National Association of Broadcasters also was part of the filing.
Broadcasters Take on Significantly-Viewed
Broadcasters approached the Federal Communications Commission late last week concerning a push by DirecTV and EchoStar to get the agency to re-think regulations tied to satellite delivery of significantly-viewed TV stations, telling those at the Portals that the DBS services' arguments don't hold water.
The satellite TV companies petitioned the FCC earlier this year with issues about the rules governing delivery of significantly-viewed stations. They asked the commission to reconsider what they said is a narrow interpretation of the local service requirement contained in the regulations. The companies said they are pushing for an interpretation that will prevent local network affiliate stations from blocking carriage of significantly-viewed analog signals.
The significantly-viewed provisions are contained in the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA).
In their joint arguments, broadcasters tackled the satellite TV companies' objection to an FCC requirement that before a subscriber can receive an analog signal of an out-of-market significantly-viewed station affiliated with a particular network the subscriber must first receive the analog signal of a local station affiliated with that network.
What the satellite TV companies want, the broadcasters said, "is a regulatory-imposed advantage over local stations in retransmission consent negotiations. But the commission correctly recognized that SHVERA was intended not to enhance the negotiating leverage of either broadcasters or satellite carriers, but rather to protect localism and to prevent satellite carriers from by-passing local stations or using the threat of delivery of out-of-market stations to extract more favorable retransmission consent terms."
Broadcast affiliate associations participating in the FCC filing represent stations carrying ABC, CBS and NBC. The National Association of Broadcasters also was part of the filing.
The NAB needs to go take a hike as far as I'm concerned. All of these stupid groups have too much clout with congress and the FCC. What happened to what this country was founded on, "Power of the people"? Anyways it doesn't matter if rates keep going up and it comes to a point where I can't afford pay tv I'll go out and buy a HDTV receiver, Series 3 TIVO and the most powerful tv antenna out and watch tv that way.
What I think is always funny is how the NAB and the affiliates fail to mention that CABLE operators are allowed to, AND DO air affiliates outside of their home market, which would beg the question back at them, so why not DBS too? What are you guys afraid of; an equal playing field?
Federal regulations led by I believe the NAB require cable companies to pickup any station that wants to be broadcasted on the local cable company withing I believe 75 miles. Now they do have to come to a retransmission agreement with that station when the time comes just like with satellite tv or they lose the right to lose that station but that means every station with 75 milest of the company has a right to be carried. Now I'm not saying I want 2 million stations on directv because that would put directv out of business but at least offer the people who can't get locals the right to watch the neighboring locals if they can get them.
You don't need 2M stations; heres all DBS and cable need:
ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the merged WB and maybe PBS - 6 networks, controlled by the NETWORK themselves. One for each of the timezones covering the USA and its territories. Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific, Alaska, and Hawaii at most. That makes 7 zones times 6 networks; 42 total stations (at most) for DBS and cable to pull it ALL DOWN via satellite and allow their CUSTOMERS to CHOOSE and pay for what they want; none , some or ALL. Send local news, weather, sports and human interest back to the newspaper and radio where is belongs. AND if any one local wants to foot the bill for a local only TV station, with local ads let THEM pay to provide a LOCAL ONLY independent product that does not ride the coat tails of the network. End the DMA system and reclaim all that wasted freq space.
ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the merged WB and maybe PBS - 6 networks, controlled by the NETWORK themselves. One for each of the timezones covering the USA and its territories. Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific, Alaska, and Hawaii at most. That makes 7 zones times 6 networks; 42 total stations (at most) for DBS and cable to pull it ALL DOWN via satellite and allow their CUSTOMERS to CHOOSE and pay for what they want; none , some or ALL. Send local news, weather, sports and human interest back to the newspaper and radio where is belongs. AND if any one local wants to foot the bill for a local only TV station, with local ads let THEM pay to provide a LOCAL ONLY independent product that does not ride the coat tails of the network. End the DMA system and reclaim all that wasted freq space.
Attachments
Last edited:
But... for the most part D* carries all of the neighboring channels in the neighboring cities. And since the neighboring cities are close enough to be picked up in a nearby city even using spot beam. The whole technical issue is to program those stations to the neighboring cities through software changes. Bandwidth doesn't seem to be an issue,
From Doug Lung's RF report:
-----------------
Date posted: 2006-03-09
NAB, Net Affiliates Oppose SHVERA Petition for Reconsideration
On Jan. 6, 2006, DirecTV and EchoStar Satellite filed a Petition for Reconsideration in MB Docket 05-49, Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004. The DBS companies argued that in this proceeding, "the Commission has adopted two overly restrictive conditions for satellite carriage of significantly viewed signals that are inconsistent with the text of SHVERA and risk undermining the very purposes for which SHVERA was enacted." DirecTV and EchoStar argued against the "equivalent bandwidth" provision requiring carriers to give equal bandwidth to local and significantly viewed network station pairs and to adjust to programming changes on a real time basis. They also objected to the FCC's interpretation that SHVERA requires a subscriber receive local-into-local service before receiving distant-into-local analog service. This was interpreted by the companies as meaning that a subscriber must receive a specific local network analog network signal as a precondition to receiving the analog signal of a distant station affiliated with the same network.
In their Joint Opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration, NAB and the ABC, CBS, FBC and NBC Television Affiliate Associations said, "The various objections of DirecTV and EchoStar ("Petitioners") to the Commission's interpretations of SHVERA's requirements for satellite delivery of significantly viewed signals are without merit." NAB and the affiliate groups said the comparative bid rate approach does not equate to an "equal bandwidth" requirement, noting that SHVERA precludes "identical bandwidth" and that the FCC explains at least five ways why its comparative bit rate approach is not an "equal bandwidth" or "identical bandwidth" requirement.
NAB and the affiliates also said there is no merit to the satellite carriers' objection to the FCC's interpretation of SHVERA requirements to receive an analog signal of the local station affiliated with a network before the subscriber can receive a significantly viewed station affiliated with the same network. According to the groups, "The Commission correctly explained in the Report and Order how Section 340(b)(1) must be construed together with Sections 340(b)(3) and 340(b)(4) and with the legislative history of SHVERA. Petitioners would have the Commission read and interpret specific provisions of SHVERA in isolation, out of context, and in obvious disregard of other interrelated provisions and the statute's legislative history."
The groups added, "What Petitioners really request is a regulatory-imposed advantage over local stations in retransmission consent negotiations."
NAB and the affiliate groups felt that the commission had correctly recognized that the intent of SHVERA was to protect localism and to prevent satellite carriers from bypassing local broadcasters or threatening to deliver out-of-market signals to gain better retransmission consent terms, and not to enhance negotiating leverage from either side. According to the statement from the groups, "Petitioners would ascribe to the statute a meaning and result that is completely at odds with the stated will of Congress."
For a complete understanding of the arguments, use the FCC's Search for Filed Comments page and enter 05-49 for the proceeding. This will provide a listing of all filings in this proceeding, including DirecTV and EchoStar's Petition for Reconsideration.
-----------------
Date posted: 2006-03-09
NAB, Net Affiliates Oppose SHVERA Petition for Reconsideration
On Jan. 6, 2006, DirecTV and EchoStar Satellite filed a Petition for Reconsideration in MB Docket 05-49, Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004. The DBS companies argued that in this proceeding, "the Commission has adopted two overly restrictive conditions for satellite carriage of significantly viewed signals that are inconsistent with the text of SHVERA and risk undermining the very purposes for which SHVERA was enacted." DirecTV and EchoStar argued against the "equivalent bandwidth" provision requiring carriers to give equal bandwidth to local and significantly viewed network station pairs and to adjust to programming changes on a real time basis. They also objected to the FCC's interpretation that SHVERA requires a subscriber receive local-into-local service before receiving distant-into-local analog service. This was interpreted by the companies as meaning that a subscriber must receive a specific local network analog network signal as a precondition to receiving the analog signal of a distant station affiliated with the same network.
In their Joint Opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration, NAB and the ABC, CBS, FBC and NBC Television Affiliate Associations said, "The various objections of DirecTV and EchoStar ("Petitioners") to the Commission's interpretations of SHVERA's requirements for satellite delivery of significantly viewed signals are without merit." NAB and the affiliate groups said the comparative bid rate approach does not equate to an "equal bandwidth" requirement, noting that SHVERA precludes "identical bandwidth" and that the FCC explains at least five ways why its comparative bit rate approach is not an "equal bandwidth" or "identical bandwidth" requirement.
NAB and the affiliates also said there is no merit to the satellite carriers' objection to the FCC's interpretation of SHVERA requirements to receive an analog signal of the local station affiliated with a network before the subscriber can receive a significantly viewed station affiliated with the same network. According to the groups, "The Commission correctly explained in the Report and Order how Section 340(b)(1) must be construed together with Sections 340(b)(3) and 340(b)(4) and with the legislative history of SHVERA. Petitioners would have the Commission read and interpret specific provisions of SHVERA in isolation, out of context, and in obvious disregard of other interrelated provisions and the statute's legislative history."
The groups added, "What Petitioners really request is a regulatory-imposed advantage over local stations in retransmission consent negotiations."
NAB and the affiliate groups felt that the commission had correctly recognized that the intent of SHVERA was to protect localism and to prevent satellite carriers from bypassing local broadcasters or threatening to deliver out-of-market signals to gain better retransmission consent terms, and not to enhance negotiating leverage from either side. According to the statement from the groups, "Petitioners would ascribe to the statute a meaning and result that is completely at odds with the stated will of Congress."
For a complete understanding of the arguments, use the FCC's Search for Filed Comments page and enter 05-49 for the proceeding. This will provide a listing of all filings in this proceeding, including DirecTV and EchoStar's Petition for Reconsideration.
Oh for the good old days when we only had east and west coast feeds and they were from various cities. The heck with all these local station fiefdoms. Let them east cake!
cal87 said:
Yes, and no. The authority to carry local stations on cable was decided by the courts many years ago. The specific authority for satellite to do the same was passed by Congress. The new "significantly viewed" provision for SHVERA allows DBS to carry stations in any county where they are considered "significantly viewed". The new law does not specifically address Network non-dup protection nor syndicated exclusivity. Presumably, the existing network and syndicator contracts that apply to cable also apply to DBS. Implementation of those contracts on a DBS system is similar to the regional sports blackouts that already occur today. An out of market station may be black during many times of the day.
Yet the real issue is retransmission consent. Apparantly some stations have asked the DBS companies to delete "significantly viewed" out of market stations as a part of their in-market retransmission consent contract. That may not be what Congress had in mind, but it is the free market system in action.
The difference is that broadcasters can ask for "must carry" on cable systems where they are significantly viewed. Congress granted DBS the right to carry significantly viewed stations, but did not allow for any out of market "must carry" rights to the broadcaster.
cal87 said:
Thanks to the NAB YES, at least for now. Cable doesn't operate on the same rules, they are offered an advantage which DBS is seeking to even.
DBS does not dictate your DMA. It is established by the NAB & FCC through your zip code. DirecTV and Dish Network just enforce what they are told.
charper1 said:
It is interesting that Directv is only asking to be allowed to do what the cable companies have been doing for years and then NAB turns around and calls it a "a regulatory-imposed advantage" . Notice nowhere is there any discussion of what is best for the consumer.
Oh for the good old days when the airwaves were seen as belonging to the public.
- Status
