You’re not answering with that response. It was a two part. One, that the provider is not currently providing that channel in LiL. The second part is that they cannot reasonably receive signal OTA. The combination of those two factors, per the FCC description above, would mean he is an unserved customer. This wouldn’t apply to those that can get it OTA. So I ask again, instead of just saying “because this is how I’m interpreting it”, can you please cite a single relative source? Because the FCC source is stating the exact opposite of what you’re saying and you’re providing nothing to the contrary other than conjecture and opinion labeled as fact.
Am I an "Unserved Subscriber"? [Tegna Question]
- Thread starter WinterWinds
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 4K
- Status
I'm done arguing this, this is what the law has been since at least 2010, if not whichever law was prior to that (SHVA I think)
If you think I'm wrong, call Dish and argue with them until you're blue in the face, they aren't going to give you an out of market replacement
Being temporarily without a station that your MPV cannot provide because of a dispute does not make you "unserved". The only possible exception to you being able to receive ONLY stations in you designated DMA is if your Washington representative has put into the law an exception, such as parts of Vermont or New Hampshire (IIRC). Dish CANNOT give you a station from another DMA just because your local station has withdrawn its approval for re-transmission because that station and that station ONLY has the rights to have it's signal observed in your DMA - whether or not you can actually receive that signal.
Not being able to receive a signal OTA is irrelevant. Dish provides all the other stations in your DMA so you are served. The NAB and the denying station do not care if you miss a football game or your favorite program, all they want is their piece of flesh ($$$). That is why they had the law written as it is.
The "unserved" disappeared when Dish satisfied the portion of the latest re-transmission law that they serve EVERY DMA, which they do, but the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) insisted that only the local station in each DMA may have its signal transmitted in that DMA with the exception of there NOT being a station for that network in the DMA or the special exceptions inserted by congress. If Dish is serving all the other stations in your DMA except for the one or maybe two that have withdrawn permission, that DMA is served by law - the individual stations were empowered by the NAB lobby to hold their signal hostage from you by denying re-transmission and denying importation of other DMA networks.
Believe me, if Dish were able to legally give you a station from a neighboring DMA or even a national network feed, they would do it in a heartbeat - they CANNOT.
Not being able to receive a signal OTA is irrelevant. Dish provides all the other stations in your DMA so you are served. The NAB and the denying station do not care if you miss a football game or your favorite program, all they want is their piece of flesh ($$$). That is why they had the law written as it is.
The "unserved" disappeared when Dish satisfied the portion of the latest re-transmission law that they serve EVERY DMA, which they do, but the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) insisted that only the local station in each DMA may have its signal transmitted in that DMA with the exception of there NOT being a station for that network in the DMA or the special exceptions inserted by congress. If Dish is serving all the other stations in your DMA except for the one or maybe two that have withdrawn permission, that DMA is served by law - the individual stations were empowered by the NAB lobby to hold their signal hostage from you by denying re-transmission and denying importation of other DMA networks.
Believe me, if Dish were able to legally give you a station from a neighboring DMA or even a national network feed, they would do it in a heartbeat - they CANNOT.
I think you guys think I am of the opinion that you’re incorrect. That’s not the case here. I was very clear. Please stop just saying it, and please post the actual law or ruling or supporting evidence because everything said is in direct contradiction to the FCCs statement posted. I’m unsure as to why supporting against a supported argument is a strange request, but currently there has been no supporting evidence to what is being said. Please support your position with direct, verifiable sources, just as the OP did when they posted the very specific section from the FCC.
The FCC says the subscriber "can ask your satellite TV company if it can provide you with an out-of-market station affiliated with the same network." The OP apparently has done that and Dish said, "No." As others have said, if Dish were legally able to do it, they would do it in an instant as a powerful negotiating tool.
It wouldn’t really be a powerful tool, only because it would only apply to the folks that cannot get OTA, which again “99.9%” of continental US can receive.
That 99.5% only takes into account those that are within range of the OTA towers. It does not account for those that cannot install an OTA antenna for a variety of reasons that I'm sure you're familiar with. It also does not take into account those subscribers that do not have OTA capability installed on their Dish equipment and do not want to lose the DVR capabilities and EPG convenience. All that adds up to a powerful tool when Dish can keep those subscribers reasonably happy during a take down. When our service address is our dual DMA VT site, it certainly makes us happy to have an alternate network station available during take downs.
Believe me, if Dish were able to legally give you a station from a neighboring DMA or even a national network feed, they would do it in a heartbeat - they CANNOT.
In fact Dish used the Cleveland market station for Dayton Ohio when Dayton WHIO was down for several weeks due to tower work. They got permission from WHIO to use an out of market station. But with the dispute over costs the local station would never give Dish permission to use an out of market station.
In fact Dish used the Cleveland market station for Dayton Ohio when Dayton WHIO was down for several weeks due to tower work. They got permission from WHIO to use an out of market station. But with the dispute over costs the local station would never give Dish permission to use an out of market station.
"In this case, you can ask your satellite TV company if it can provide you with an out-of-market station affiliated with the same network." (emphasis added) If Dish could do it, do you think they would not? And why not?
Supporting link:
Am I an "Unserved Subscriber"? [Tegna Question]
I live in an rural area in which I am unable to receive any OTA Broadcast Signals. My local NBC Station is owned by Tegna and currently unavailable to me via Dish Network. I have no access to the NBC Network at all. Am I reading the FCC rules correctly? Am I an "Unserved Subscriber" and...
www.satelliteguys.us
Dish couldn’t proactively do it. It would be on a case by case basis, and if I remember correctly, both stations have to sign off. The part that I am asking about is for evidence he would NOT qualify for unserved with supporting facts. Per the FCCs statement, he is and qualifies to ask.
You don't even have to qualify to ask. You have a first amendment right to call Dish and ask for whatever you want. You can ask them to send you a pizza if you want. Doesn't mean it's going to happen
I'm not sure why you're so hung up on wanting us to give you the exact legal language, but whether we do or not isn't going to magically make Dish start offering out of market locals to customers who are affected by a carriage dispute. You can't take this thread to Dish and say "see! there's no proof! give me ABC, damnit!" it just doesn't work that way
I'm not going to dig through the US copyright codes because I'm not a lawyer and I have better things to do with my time. The evidence that you seek is the fact that Dish will not provide distant network service in this instance, and I guarantee their lawyers know the law better than you OR myself
He can certainly ask whatever he wants at any time... Dish is not required under the rules to provide the out of market station regardless of whether it's for legal or technical reasons. Nor do I picture an out of market major network station owner agreeing to be carried during a retrans dispute.
I agree, but the question was if he qualifies as one. Under the FCCs definition originally, he does. That’s been the whole point here. I have been asking for a specific on how he doesn’t using supporting documents, however it still hasn’t happened, and I’ve only been told that the FCC is incorrect about their own policy.
You have repeatedly by denying the FCC definition above. I’m asking for you to show that the fCC either goes more in depth or is speaking out its backside. You have yet to support your position for some strange reason. I’m not telling you that you’re wrong. I’m telling you that there is a supported position and an unsupported position based on text applied within this conversation.
It appears to me that you are misreading the FCC statement. It says if your provider is not offering a particular station, the customer may request a station from elsewhere. But in the case of a dispute, it is not that Dish is not offering the station, it is that the station has refused the offer that Dish has made to continue carriage so the customer is not unserved by definition. Dish is certainly offering to carry the station but Tegna has refused the offer so all of Dish's customers in that DMA are served but ill served by Tegna, not Dish.
You are arguing about the definition of served, but the crux of the matter is the definition of offering. The FCC statement does not say carrying, it says offering and Dish is offering the station to carry their programming - Tegna has refused that offer.
You are arguing about the definition of served, but the crux of the matter is the definition of offering. The FCC statement does not say carrying, it says offering and Dish is offering the station to carry their programming - Tegna has refused that offer.
That may be the case, but while the dispute is occurring, Dish is not offering the channel. They desire to offer it. They made an offer for it. But the fact remains that until a deal is struck, Dish is not offering Tegna locals.
It still requires both companies to agree, and the tv company to then agree to do it, which means there is so very little chance of this happening. However, it doesn’t change the fine point that it qualifies under the FCC, it just would never be used in this case.
It still requires both companies to agree, and the tv company to then agree to do it, which means there is so very little chance of this happening. However, it doesn’t change the fine point that it qualifies under the FCC, it just would never be used in this case.
- Status
