Then, in 2004, the law was changed again. New customers that could get their local channels could no longer get distant networks. Those customers that had distant networks can keep them provided they do not subscribe to local channels.
Greg you are partially wrong on this. The grandfathering I am referring to is the paragraph I quoted from you above. The change meant new subscribers could not get distants if the provider had your locals, period.
But if you were grandfathered, you could keep your distants
and get the locals. Getting or not getting the locals had no effect on this. And you keep your distants as long as you did not give them up. Once you stopped subscribing there was no going back.
(Of course all assumes you are in a white area)
I think the biggest difference of opinon is just not going to be agreed by you and I. I'm sure the NAB'S postion is your postion - the law was meant to provide networks from out of DMA only when there was no way to get them. Some of us know better. It was meant to allow for reception of out of DMA networks when the local network did not provide a
free OTA signal. I don't deny that got changed of course, but that's the crux of the problem. It was never meant to protect the local network stations when you did not receive a free OTA signal, and had to pay for getting a signal. Once you had to pay to get a signal the protection was gone. That is what got changed and what so many feel is wrong. Putting my locals on Dish doesn't change I cannot get an OTA free signal. I must pay to get that Dish signal, and therefore I should be able to envoke my white area rights and get distants. As it stands now, that is exactly what has happened in a long round about way, and that is why it seems to be totally being allowed. The original law was never meant in my opinion to stop someone in a white area from getting distants. I agree that changed, but again it is that change that promps this whole problem. It is a vey artificial argument to say you can get distants if you use two providers, but not from one provider. Anyone in a white area could have had NPS C Dish distants and Dish locals. That alone proves the intent was not to deny distants in a white area. To say you cannot do the same thing using the same provider (the change in the law) was denying rights in my opinion. So the next best thing has happened -same equipment, different providers. That change in the law not allowing a provider to give both locals and distants is what is very artificial and is not consistant.