Dish Seeks Supremes Call On STELA HD Mandate (PBS)

CK SatGuy

Formerly ckhalil18
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
4,023
112
The Motor City
From Multichannel News-
Dish Network has asked the Supreme Court to rule on what First Amendment test should apply to its Congressional mandate to carry noncommercial stations in HD in advance of other stations.

It also wants to know, generally, what standard for First Amendment scrutiny should apply across various media. At issue, if the Supremes take the case, could be the underpinnings of entire government must-carry regime.
That came in a request to the Supreme Court last week, according to Scotusblog.com. Dish has filed a petition for certiorari, asking the High Court to review a Ninth Circuit Appeals court decision last February upholding a district court's denial of Dish's request for a preliminary injunction against implementing the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act's (STELA) noncom HD mandate on Dish.

Per the law, Dish was required to strike deals with noncom stations for HD carriage or be subject to an early deadline for an HD carriage mandate that kicks in more generally in 2013.
The No. 2 DBS provider wants an answer on whether Congress can require a private party to "grant preferential treatment to specified speakers: noncom stations.

The Ninth Circuit, which applied intermediate scrutiny saying the law did implicate the First Amendment but was not the kind of content-based call that requires strict scrutiny, held that .
Dish argues that the government is favoring one type of speech over another. "Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Ninth Circuit upheld the preference based on the government's interest in increasing the popularity of federally funded stations to increase the flow of viewer donations. In other words, telethons trump editorial discretion," Dish told the High Court.
The satelllite company summed up that discretion: "Dish believes its viewers are more interested in seeing Harry Potter and the Super Bowl in HD than Charlie Rose and Sesame Street."

Dish is also looking to establish what form of First Amendment scrutiny should apply across various media, saying that question has split the lower circuits. One of the reasons The Supreme Court will hear an appeal is to resolve a split in lower court decisions.
Dish summarized the questions it wants answered as the following:
"What is the baseline level of First Amendment scrutiny that applies to laws requiring satellite TV providers to carry broadcast stations-the strict scrutiny that applies to most forms of communication; the rational-basis scrutiny that (at least currently) applies to over-the-air broadcast; or the intermediate scrutiny that applies to cable?" DISH would argue that it should be subject to strict scrutiny.

1. "Content-based laws are subject to heightened scrutiny. Is a carriage requirement that favors certain educational content considered content-based and subject to heightened scrutiny?"
2. The Ninth Circuit, in upholding a district court's denial of an injunction, said that the STELA noncom carriage provision is "not substantially more restrictive than necessary [the intermediate scrutiny threshold] to address Congress's reasonable fear that without action, Dish's decision to deprioritize PBS would jeopardize the ability of public broadcasters to compete with commercial stations."

Dish counters in its petition to the Supremes that the Ninth Circuit got it wrong. "Congress overrode Dishs editorial judgment [with STELA], which requires Dish to move a privileged group of local television stations to the head of the HD line," which it pointed out was not even all noncom stations, just ones that qualified for a government grant, which Dish says only those that are not too religious or too political, pointing to government funding criteria that exclude stations that "further the principles of particular religious or political philosophies" or primarily "in-school" stations, which Dish suggests are arguably the most educational of all.


Dish Seeks Supremes Call On STELA HD Mandate - 2011-10-26 16:48:31 | Multichannel News
 
If we had a rational government, PBS wouldn't have a leg to stand on -- the national PBS feeds are available for free to anyone who bothers to put up a dish for it.
 
This strikes me as one of those cases, which, if the Supreme Court does take it, means heavily they will agree with Dish. I'm not saying they will take it, only if they do.....
 
If we had a rational government, PBS wouldn't have a leg to stand on -- the national PBS feeds are available for free to anyone who bothers to put up a dish for it.

Yes, and if that is possible, why are there even local PBS stations anymore? They should just make the feeds you are referring to available to every provider and so be it.
 
"Dish believes its viewers are more interested in seeing Harry Potter and the Super Bowl in HD than Charlie Rose and Sesame Street."

Wrong. I watch PBS everyday (no, not Sesame Street) and would love to have it in HD. I can't wait until WGBH-HD and WENH-HD come to the Boston DMA on Dish.

And furthermore, get a clue Dish - Charlie Rose is not in HD, bad example.

John
WENH - NHPTV Supporter
 
And furthermore, get a clue Dish - Charlie Rose is not in HD, bad example.

John
WENH - NHPTV Supporter
Then that's even worse, being asked to use up HD bandwidth for non-HD programming.

I haven't read STELA and I'm not a lawyer, so with that out of the way, Dish in our area has not offered our local PBS station to us, but they do provide most of the other for-profit stations, even some of the LP stations. Since the US Government funds PBS stations AND they write the laws, in effect they are holding a loaded gun to the DBS providers saying "you will carry our programming."

I'm lucky in that I live close enough to be able to pick up all of our OTA stations so I don't get any added benefit from Dish having our local PBS station, but others aren't as fortunate. I'm surprised that Dish hasn't struck a deal with our PBS station yet, but I'm sure it's due to Dish wanting more money than our PBS station wants to pay.
 
This strikes me as one of those cases, which, if the Supreme Court does take it, means heavily they will agree with Dish. I'm not saying they will take it, only if they do.....

This is not really clear... Remember in the US the government owns all the radio spectrum. Dish leases this spectrum. The Government has been quite successful regulating what OTA TV channels can/cannot/must show. They are using a government resource.
 
Then that's even worse, being asked to use up HD bandwidth for non-HD programming.

Are all programs on your local ABC, CBS, NBC & FOX stations are in HD? No, but the majority are. Likewise, the majority of PBS programs are in HD.

Don't you find it a little two-faced on Dish's part to use "The Super Bowl", meaning sports programming, as an example of what people want? Look at Dish's track record on sports programming in HD...cough, 24/7 RSNs, cough.
 
While it would be nice for Dish to carry PBS HD for Detroit, I'm not going to beg for it. If they carry in the near future, great. If not, then it's not a big deal to me.
 
I was thinking about this and Dish would probably be better off not arguing first admendment but taking of property without compensation. Essentially they are being forced to use their property (satellite, leased spectrum, etc.) to carry these stations ahead of profitable stations.

The 5% public interest requirement was what they signed up for when they applied for the spectrum. That was part of the deal. Now via legistlation they are being forced to use their property without compensation.
 
I was thinking about this and Dish would probably be better off not arguing first admendment but taking of property without compensation. Essentially they are being forced to use their property (satellite, leased spectrum, etc.) to carry these stations ahead of profitable stations.

The 5% public interest requirement was what they signed up for when they applied for the spectrum. That was part of the deal. Now via legistlation they are being forced to use their property without compensation.


Are they being forced to use "their proprty' or are they being required to carry certain programming if they want to use the public airwaves? There are always at least two ways to look at everything.
 
I think this is just a delaying tactic they are using to slow things down until they can get bandwidth available for all the OTA stations in HD. EA will be there soon WA is still going to take a while. I personally think the Supreme Court won't even consider it.
 
Well, I guess should have looked at my EPG. WNIT-HD is up on DishNetwork as is their SD sub-channel. And we're the #86 DMA. I wonder how many of the other DMAs in the US have their PBS stations available on Dish.
 
Well, I guess should have looked at my EPG. WNIT-HD is up on DishNetwork as is their SD sub-channel. And we're the #86 DMA. I wonder how many of the other DMAs in the US have their PBS stations available on Dish.
Quite a lot have at least the SD version. Many do not have HD but then they may not have any of the LIL in HD.
 
Considering the number of conservatives on the court (many [conservatives in general] of whom have expressed NO LOVE of the public broadcasting institutions--in fact, wanting them abolished), and this court's recent rulings in other cases, I would expect the Supreme to vote to hear this one as they will want to bring clarity to the legal issue and they all get to have their say about the place of Public Broadcasting, especially the US Congress funding of it, in this country as we know it today. Oh, yeah, the conservatives on the court would LOVE to cut the cord--funding or otherwise--to public radio and TV in their dreams. I'll even go so far as to say that the court (I'm guessing they will vote to hear this case) will side with Dish with the conservatives voting as expected and the non-cons voting the other way.

I am looking forward to this.
 
If Dish can carry KRON 4 in HD, a horrible little local station in the SF/SJ/OAK DMA that carries no network programming, and KICU 36, another local station with only syndicated programming, they can sure as hell carry KQED, one of the top three PBS stations in the nation, along with WNET and WGBH.

I guarantee that if they took a poll of Dish subs in this DMA, they'd gladly give those two stations in HD for KQED in HD. And, while Dish is at it, why not add KBCW44 in HD? At least it has new "network" programming (even if it's only CW) vs the reruns and syndicated crap of KRON and KICU.
 
If Dish can carry KRON 4 in HD, a horrible little local station in the SF/SJ/OAK DMA that carries no network programming, and KICU 36, another local station with only syndicated programming, they can sure as hell carry KQED, one of the top three PBS stations in the nation, along with WNET and WGBH.

I guarantee that if they took a poll of Dish subs in this DMA, they'd gladly give those two stations in HD for KQED in HD. And, while Dish is at it, why not add KBCW44 in HD? At least it has new "network" programming (even if it's only CW) vs the reruns and syndicated crap of KRON and KICU.
Isn't KRON the NBC station for the DMA?
 
Isn't KRON the NBC station for the DMA?
Nope. KNTV11 in San Jose is the NBC-owned station for the SF/SJ/OAK DMA.

KRON was an NBC affiliate until many years ago. During their last year as the local NBC station, they were an early adopter of the squeeze-the-sat-ops-for-more-money philosophy. But, it didn't work, as Dish knew their NBC affiliation was expiring. As a Dish sub at the time, I was a little inconvenienced at not having an NBC affiliate thru the sat. But, I got over it. And, I've never really forgiven KRON management for being such asses about it.