Dish asks for your help!

[Scott Greczkowski]

As you may know the SHVA (Satellite Home Viewers Act) comes up for renewal. Dish Network would like to have some changes made to the act to help level the playing field against the cable companies and they are looking for everyones help.

I have thought about Dish's cry for help for awhile, and as much as Dish has left a sour taste in my mouth lately I believe it IS in the best interest of all SatelliteGuys Members to support Dish's efforts.

Helping out will not only help Dish Network but other satellite providers as well. If these changes are made which dish seeks satellite television will be better for all.

Below is a document sent to me by Dish for retailers, after reviewing it I have decided that it would be best to post this document for all to see, as it contains no dealer sensitive information I can see.

On behalf of all SatelliteGuys members and satellite customers around the country I ask you to take a moment to do what you can.

Thanks

 

[rad]

OK, Charlie's got me confused. He's said that there's no 'compelling' HD programming out there now, so why add any new channels now. So Starz-HD, Cinemax-HD, Bravo-HD aren't compelling but ABC, NBC and Fox are? What's so new and compelling on the HD versions of the broadcast networks vs. the channels already available? Most of the content is film based that's either upconverted or a HD transfer and the programming is currently available on the SD channels. Sorry, but to me it sounds like Charlie's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[splino]

Monday Night Football

 

[dfergie]

I rarely watched cbs(except for survivor) until I got waivers for cbs-hd now I very rarely watch the rest of the networks... no hd ota. I would love to have the chance to watch nbc, abc and maybe the upn and wb in hd. I live 300 miles from Albuqurque, the source for my so called "locals" we get ota thru translators(that will never send hd to us down here).

 

[Kevin_Texas]

Channel 136 has some information on this. There is also this link http://www.iwantmyhdtv.com/iwanthdtv/ to send a request to
your congressman

I belive this is the same thing!!!

 

[Kevin_Texas]

One other thing is that hear in the Dallas area we can already get most of the prime time shows in HDTV through OTA. I would like to see more movie
channels with HDTV.

 

[nebguy94]

I'd recommend going to www.congress.org and composing a custom message to your congressional representatives...

"iwantmyhdtv" makes it easy, but the end result is your congressmen will get a letter that appears impersonal and it won't be taken as seriously as a more personal letter. A hard copy letter would get the most attention, but a custom message from a site that isn't espousing a single interest, while not quite as good as a real letter, will definitely make your point be heard more clearly than just another bulk message...

 

[Randy_B]

I cc:ed the E* address as they requested but it bounced as undeliverable. Figures.

 

[sampatterson]

For HDTV they should be pushing a multipath issue also, not just a Grade X signal or Ghosting. There is 1 Atlanta channel I can't get at all, and 2 that I can't get very well because of multipath issues (non-line-of-sight to towers). Yep, we live in a hole right near Sweat Mountain (for any Cobb/Cherokee County Georgians out there)

 

[rad]

Monday Night Football

Ah, but there's Sunday Night Football on ESPN-HD, so if MNF 'compelling' HD content over an above the content that's already available that Charlie isn't interested in? Please don't get me wrong, I'd love to see what E* is trying to do happen, I'm just confused on what Charlie and company are using to determine what's compelling HD content and what isn't.

 

[jcrash]

Huh?

Grandfathered Consumers – Consumers who subscribed for distant network channels before November 1999 are permitted to keep those channels even though they are predicted to get a Grade B signal. The current draft of the law takes this right away from these grandfathered consumers.

Huh? Dish took away my stations last year and I subscribed well before November 1999 to distant networks.

So, the CURRENT LAW and CURRENT DRAFT of the law forbids this?

The Local Channel Penalty – The current draft of the SHVIA renewal provides that if a customer subscribes to local network channels by satellite, the customer is no longer allowed to get distant network channels by satellite.

Um, it does? So, why did Dish leave me with Distant CBS?

Hey, I'm all for getting Distant HD Channels over the satellite, but this does all seem more than a bit distorted

 

[MRUSS]

I'm totally ticked at my local cbs,fox and abc, I just won't watch them. Our local nbc has been doing hd for 2 years now and we have just got pbs a couple of months ago. I support Charlie on this.

 

[BarryO]

For HDTV they should be pushing a multipath issue also, not just a Grade X signal or Ghosting. There is 1 Atlanta channel I can't get at all, and 2 that I can't get very well because of multipath issues (non-line-of-sight to towers). Yep, we live in a hole right near Sweat Mountain (for any Cobb/Cherokee County Georgians out there)

Ghosting and mulitpath are the same thing. Or rather, multipath is what causes ghosts to appear on an analog signal.

I really like the idea that you should be eligible for distant HD networks if you cannot receive local HD. As it is now, if you can receive local analog, that fact alone disqualifies you.

Unfortunately, the NAB has bribing (I'm sorry, I mean "campaign contribution donating") members in every congressional district, so I don't hold out much hope.

 

[dlsnyder]

There needs to be a provision which puts some of the burden on the broadcasters. If a viewer in a given DMA cannot receive a grade B or better signal OTA then the broadcaster should be either be compelled to grant a waiver or subsidize an alternate means of reception. That could mean anything from setting up a repeater to picking up the tab for reception of locals via satellite or cable. This should only apply to those broadcasters who elect to charge for carriage of their signal. Those who elect for must carry status, including PBS affiliates, should be exempt. In my opinion broadcasters are becoming far too dependant on cable or satellite for distribution of their signal. They were granted licenses at no cost to conduct business on the public airwaves. If they are going to hold viewers in their exclusive areas hostage by forcing them to pay for cable or satellite to watch their channel then they need to either assume some of the financial burden or allow viewers the freedom to seek other alternatives at their own cost.

Do you think the NAB would go for that?

 

[weagle]

one thing they should do is one wants hdtv channels they shouldn't be forced to get the sdtv channels like many of these monopoly companies are doing such as hbo,showtime etc... if I want only hbohdtv thats all i should have to pay for and not the crummy sdtv channels, the sdtv channels themselves should be in a different group and then someday when everyone moves to the hdtv group the sdtv channels will have no value since everyones not watching them or even paying for them.

 

[hffernandez]

I still don't have this clear, even after reading some of these posts. If I can receive local DTV (480) and under revision of the SHIVA I would be able to subscribe to the distant networks for there HD (720 1080) programming alone? My better half live's and breaths network programming and I go along for the ride. It just burns me to no end to see the "Avaialble in HD where avaiable" and not be able to. I also was one of the ones gradfathered for the E & W network feeds. The thought of loosing these is really gonna make my world (wife) miserable . Its always something, even back in the C-band days its been a fight and it shouldn't. The FCC act of 1934 or close to it says the "Airwaves belong to the People", It doesn't when comes to greed for profit. When it comes to Judgement day these lobbyists are gonna be standing next to the credit card/oil cartel and numerous other jackass's making my life miserable.

 

[TheForce]

It is my understanding friom a local independent test firm that multipath issues are grounds for waiver grant. This particular technician claims to have been successful in many waiver grants after submission of the process for waiver denial challenge under FCC regulations.

 

[jrbdmb]

There needs to be a provision which puts some of the burden on the broadcasters. If a viewer in a given DMA cannot receive a grade B or better signal OTA then the broadcaster should be either be compelled to grant a waiver or subsidize an alternate means of reception. That could mean anything from setting up a repeater to picking up the tab for reception of locals via satellite or cable. This should only apply to those broadcasters who elect to charge for carriage of their signal. Those who elect for must carry status, including PBS affiliates, should be exempt. In my opinion broadcasters are becoming far too dependant on cable or satellite for distribution of their signal. They were granted licenses at no cost to conduct business on the public airwaves. If they are going to hold viewers in their exclusive areas hostage by forcing them to pay for cable or satellite to watch their channel then they need to either assume some of the financial burden or allow viewers the freedom to seek other alternatives at their own cost.

Do you think the NAB would go for that?

Exactly my thoughts on this. If I live in a white area, and need to pay $10+ to the cable company for limited basic service or pay $5.99 to E* to see these locals, I also contend that I am not really "served". If these stations want to prohibit me from getting distant NETs, then at a minimum they should be prohibited from charging any carriage fees to the cable / DBS companies.

But of course, money talks, and the NAB has the money. D* and E* have some money too, but they seem more interested in squabbling amongst themselves then getting some fair legislation hammered out.

 

[charper1]

HDTV Legislative Alert!

On July 13, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) introduced S.2644, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Rural Consumer Access to Digital Television Act of 2004 which allows consumers to receive an HDTV feed of ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX via satellite when not available from their local broadcasters.

This Ensign bill is a significant step forward in responding to the needs of consumers and ensuring that digital television will be more widely available. The bill will bring consumers more choices and greater access to digital television. It will also motivate broadcasters to move more quickly to achieve the goal of returning the analog spectrum to the taxpayers.

The Senate will soon be considering this legislation, and it is critical that consumers across the country continue to show support for making digital television widely available and to allow satellite providers to offer an HDTV network signal when it is not offered by a local broadcaster. Even if you have already sent a letter to Congress, we're asking you to send a second letter today to encourage Congress to support this legislation!

Please visit www.iwantmyhdtv.com to learn more and to send a letter to Congress in support of the Ensign bill.

Thank you.

 

[bcshields]

PLEASE CALL THE CAPITOL SENATE SWITCHBOARD AT 202-224-3121 TODAY
TO VOICE YOUR OPINION TO YOUR STATE SENATOR.

Vote is Tuesday!