I just got this in my email box and have not had time to read it yet, however it it a Ex Parte filed by Dish Network to the FCC.
Dish issues statement of HD Must Carry
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 3K
I agree with Dish.
The NAB should be focused on getting ther local stations to provide an adequate off air signal in the ares they serve, instead of worrying about Satellite coverage.
If the broadcasters signal were reachable in the areas they were supposed to server there would be no need for them to worry about satellite coverage. In my opinion the NAB is looking for a free ride.
NAB stands for NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS not NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREELOADERS.
The NAB should be focused on getting ther local stations to provide an adequate off air signal in the ares they serve, instead of worrying about Satellite coverage.
If the broadcasters signal were reachable in the areas they were supposed to server there would be no need for them to worry about satellite coverage. In my opinion the NAB is looking for a free ride.
NAB stands for NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS not NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FREELOADERS.
I totally agree with you Scott. My town is a typical example of an area that can't get good coverage of off air signals. We can pick up an out of market CBS and our DMA NBC affiliate for the most part, but an ABC or FOX station is pretty much impossible to come by. If the NAB and FCC would work to get better signals in outlying areas, then I wouldn't be begging for DISH to carry the Montgomery HD locals.
OK, how about this. We'll carry all your locals... for free. Why are the providers getting charged for something that is free over the air anyways. You'd think they'd be happy the audience is expanded.
Last edited:
Agree, just think of all those people who wouldn't have it if it wasn't for D and E. I think that they are in a bind, trying to get money so they can all upgrade to HD like they are suppose to have by 2009. If they can get E and D to pay for it then they can get all the equipment to do it. If not then I think there are going to be alot of stations going away.
The NAB operates in a 1950's vacuum.
I agree with the DBS providers on this one.
I was gonna say something, good catch. :up
Not really sure I understand everything, but as tigerfan said, at least D and E are on the same page.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. DISH and DIrectv ought to work together to form a third party company owned 50/50 by each provider , that provides all locals to both companies. They could form a common mpeg 4 platform and choose to use one satellite that both companies use- either 110 or 119. There has to be a way to do this and end all duplication of services and if they did it they could do all 210 dmas in hd this year if they wanted to.
I just look at the mess that is the Denver DMA. It covers 2/3 of Colorado, and half of Wyoming. There is absolutely no way that the Denver broadcasters would ever construct the repeaters necessary for good OTA coverage. Wyoming has a population of 515k. If you subtract the 5 largest cities, as they do have repeaters, you end up with a population of 342k. Wyoming is 97k sq miles, yielding a population density of 3.5 people/sq mile.
That's average. Many areas of Wyoming are measured in fractional people/sq mile.
Who is going to build repeaters to service this, not to mention the similarly sparsely populated Colorado western slope? Heck, they still haven't managed to get broadcast going to the front range yet. There is no way that the Denver broadcasters will ever put up expensive repeaters that would service less than 100 households.
The NAB slapped this ridiculous DMA on the area because they weren't going to have no stinkin white areas, read viewer choice. So they dump it on the Sat providers and charge for the privilege. Right. I don't think either carrier has a spot beam big enough to cover the entire DMA, so that would mean either nat beam or multiple beams for a single DMA.
Fully behind Dish here, and even further. Should DISH be required to dedicate a spot to what will likely be less than 1000 customers?
I also agree, and have ever since must carry was developed. Broadcasters should not rely on cable and satellite to get their signal out to "their" viewers. That's why those stations have those FCC-granted money-printing licenses. If cable or satellite pick them up then that should be a bonus, although I do understand a local station's right to charge a fee just like the cable networks do. Cable and satellite should not be obligated to carry any station that, in their opinion, is not important to their customers. If a particular broadcast channel is not carried, then people who want to watch will find a way to do so if the OTA signal is available to them.
