don't get caught moving

[Greg Bimson]

Your wrong again, who said anything about siezing property????? Proves your a DA.

You did, DA:

I have stated repeatedly i will pay -- simply create the mechanism where i can pay --- Government can do this -- remember -- public airwaves.

Give you a way to get what you want, i.e., stop the local channels from signing an exclusive network/affiliate or syndicator/local channel agreement. However, that agreement is property to the network/syndicator and the local station.

But I guess a contract being construed as property is a little too over your head, DA.

After all, the current law allows for the Knoxville ABC and NBC to be shown in your area, but for some reason, DirecTV, the Knoxville ABC and Knoxville NBC do not want to deliver those channels to you. So instead, you want a law to force them to sell it to you. That's about as communist as you can get.

 

[veeper2006]

You did, DA:Give you a way to get what you want, i.e., stop the local channels from signing an exclusive network/affiliate or syndicator/local channel agreement. However, that agreement is property to the network/syndicator and the local station.

But I guess a contract being construed as property is a little too over your head, DA.

After all, the current law allows for the Knoxville ABC and NBC to be shown in your area, but for some reason, DirecTV, the Knoxville ABC and Knoxville NBC do not want to deliver those channels to you. So instead, you want a law to force them to sell it to you. That's about as communist as you can get.

I apologize, your no DA -- simply a fool. btw --- can you tell me why i am supposed to sit on my arse and watch a local channel from a city that I don't do business in -- when there is a closer city that I do spend money in. No you can't -- reason is because of ac neilson --- that has nothing to do with contracts -- face it. why in the world you object to facilitating ala carte programming is beyond me. technologically it can be acheived -- and in a manner sufficient for the broadcasters to make money -- you simply wish to live in the past. hell, you probably voted for bush. and one last note ---- you wouldn't know a communist if he bit you on the arse. When you have talked to one -- or been in a communist country then you can talk to me -- otherwise you need to relax and watch something you know little of -- called -- PROGRESS and COMPETITION. And lastly - I know contract law quite well - thank you. And as any first year law student will tell you -- contracts are amendable --- so don't act like these contracts are written from the hand of God. And in case you forgot- if this were strictly a contractual matter -- then we would do away with the FCC --- sorry buddy boy -- aint gonna happen. And would it be nice to actually choose my local-- sure -- monopolies never do anything but drive up price -- but I guess your name is rockefeller and you simply love monopolies. PS - and if you want to talk about communistic -- think about those in situations like me that pay the sat company who in turn pay the local --- all for a product (local programming) that I could receive FREE if i lived in the metro area -- hell, i am subsidizing the metro viewers. Like i said -- you more than a bit anal compulsive.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I apologize, your no DA -- simply a fool. btw --- can you tell me why i am supposed to sit on my arse and watch a local channel from a city that I don't do business in -- when there is a closer city that I do spend money in. No you can't -- reason is because of ac neilson --- that has nothing to do with contracts -- face it.

And if that closer city is Knoxville, I cannot tell you why DirecTV has not been able to provide those two Knoxville channels I've mentioned.

However, in 1999, in order to balance all interests, it was determined to allow local channels based upon authorization by Nielsen market. Sure, there could have been some other determining factor, but since the only true data available was from Nielsen, then the law went with authorizations based upon the Nielsen market.

The arbitrary line from Nielsen is based on the fact that most people in your county watch channels from Lexington.

Keep in mind the legislation was updated in 2004 to include some special cases, some mandatory markets (in Hawai'i and Alaska), and the signficantly-viewed channels.

why in the world you object to facilitating ala carte programming is beyond me. technologically it can be acheived -- and in a manner sufficient for the broadcasters to make money -- you simply wish to live in the past.

Do not confuse the position I am arguing for my opinion. If it weren't for the fact that I can get the DC locals via antenna, I'd be in pretty much the same camp as you. I have been working with my representatives to get the law changed.

And lastly - I know contract law quite well - thank you. And as any first year law student will tell you -- contracts are amendable --- so don't act like these contracts are written from the hand of God. And in case you forgot- if this were strictly a contractual matter -- then we would do away with the FCC --- sorry buddy boy -- aint gonna happen

Ahh, but that is where you are wrong. This is exclusively a contractual matter.

There didn't need to be a law in order to bring "local" channels over satellite. Instead, DirecTV and Dish Network could have contacted each station and asked them to be carried regionally. This would involve the local station getting amendments to contracts with their programming providers (either the network or the syndicator) to allow resale of their copyrighted material and to also define the delivery area. Then the local station would sign a contract with Dish Network and DirecTV with a predefined delivery area, just like a Regional Sports Network.

The law that was passed simply does away with the need to have each local channel negotiate for copyright clearance within their Nielsen market, as well as establishing must-carry.

And none of this has anything to do with the FCC, which is more busy regulating the content and the digital transition than worrying about satellite delivered local channels.

So don't pass judgment that my argument has anything to do with my position. If you want to get the law changed, then understand the parties that were responsible for creating the law. If you can make sure their rights are not alienated by what you are trying to accomplish, they may actually listen.

I'll give you a hint: The DC local channels do their best at covering the Federal, DC, and Virginia goverments. Maryland is almost an afterthought. However, Baltimore channels do a ton of work on the Maryland government. Why shouldn't the two largest counties in Maryland's DC Metro area, Montgomery and Prince George's, be able to receive the Baltimore networks as well? Up until a few years ago, the Baltimore locals were available on cable, but have since been pulled. And both counties are entirely within the Grade B coverage of the Baltimore stations. These two counties will never (via satellite or cable) receive Baltimore or (as more important) Maryland news, because of the way these lines are drawn. It may not make sense to us, but it does make sense to the broadcasters. And we need to make sure we frame the argument so that it makes sense for the DC broadcasters to simply allow the Baltimore locals to these other counties, and even vice-versa.

 

[veeper2006]

And if that closer city is Knoxville, I cannot tell you why DirecTV has not been able to provide those two Knoxville channels I've mentioned.

However, in 1999, in order to balance all interests, it was determined to allow local channels based upon authorization by Nielsen market. Sure, there could have been some other determining factor, but since the only true data available was from Nielsen, then the law went with authorizations based upon the Nielsen market.

The arbitrary line from Nielsen is based on the fact that most people in your county watch channels from Lexington.

Keep in mind the legislation was updated in 2004 to include some special cases, some mandatory markets (in Hawai'i and Alaska), and the signficantly-viewed channels.Do not confuse the position I am arguing for my opinion. If it weren't for the fact that I can get the DC locals via antenna, I'd be in pretty much the same camp as you. I have been working with my representatives to get the law changed.Ahh, but that is where you are wrong. This is exclusively a contractual matter.

There didn't need to be a law in order to bring "local" channels over satellite. Instead, DirecTV and Dish Network could have contacted each station and asked them to be carried regionally. This would involve the local station getting amendments to contracts with their programming providers (either the network or the syndicator) to allow resale of their copyrighted material and to also define the delivery area. Then the local station would sign a contract with Dish Network and DirecTV with a predefined delivery area, just like a Regional Sports Network.

The law that was passed simply does away with the need to have each local channel negotiate for copyright clearance within their Nielsen market, as well as establishing must-carry.

And none of this has anything to do with the FCC, which is more busy regulating the content and the digital transition than worrying about satellite delivered local channels.

So don't pass judgment that my argument has anything to do with my position. If you want to get the law changed, then understand the parties that were responsible for creating the law. If you can make sure their rights are not alienated by what you are trying to accomplish, they may actually listen.
I'll give you a hint: The DC local channels do their best at covering the Federal, DC, and Virginia goverments. Maryland is almost an afterthought. However, Baltimore channels do a ton of work on the Maryland government. Why shouldn't the two largest counties in Maryland's DC Metro area, Montgomery and Prince George's, be able to receive the Baltimore networks as well? Up until a few years ago, the Baltimore locals were available on cable, but have since been pulled. And both counties are entirely within the Grade B coverage of the Baltimore stations. These two counties will never (via satellite or cable) receive Baltimore or (as more important) Maryland news, because of the way these lines are drawn. It may not make sense to us, but it does make sense to the broadcasters. And we need to make sure we frame the argument so that it makes sense for the DC broadcasters to simply allow the Baltimore locals to these other counties, and even vice-versa.

Balance All interests??? -hmmmm don't guess you include me in -- all. As for your abitrary line from Neilson based on the fact that most people watch Lexington program -- talk about a catch 22 ---- what damn choice do we have??? None -- no other option -- hell, your proving my point. I notice you completely avoided my comments on ala carte programming ---- guess because it destroys your entire premise - and is more of a truly capital marketplace than anything you are supporting. Now-- go ahead -- respond again about the current law -- Like I care -- you never have understood -- I am out to change it. And yes i will pass judgement - till you have walked in my shoes. You don't have a clue.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Balance All interests??? -hmmmm don't guess you include me in -- all. As for your abitrary line from Neilson based on the fact that most people watch Lexington program -- talk about a catch 22 ---- what damn choice do we have??? None -- no other option -- hell, your proving my point.

Ahh, but I never said the consumer's interest was factored into the decision. That is why I said you have to be careful to frame your argument. Getting the staffer of your Congress critter on the phone and explaining that you want the ability to get local programming from anywhere will just fall on deaf ears. And that is what I've been trying to make you understand. If you want to change the law, frame it better.

I notice you completely avoided my comments on ala carte programming ---- guess because it destroys your entire premise - and is more of a truly capital marketplace than anything you are supporting.

It is "more of a truly capital marketplace"? Are you kidding me? This translates to "I'll be able to get what I want". Except that the way the business is structured now is a true marketplace. Has been evolving for over four decades. People confuse my statements for how businesses run now for my opinion. You want a la carte? Stop feeding the system. If you can't do without, you are simply feeding the system but damning the machine, which is the most hypocritical argument ever.

Now-- go ahead -- respond again about the current law -- Like I care -- you never have understood -- I am out to change it. And yes i will pass judgement - till you have walked in my shoes. You don't have a clue.

I have been trying to change the law. I've spoken to the staffers of my Congress critters. Good luck on your end, because your demands are so outrageous as they currently stand you'd be lucky to be heard.

 

[veeper2006]

Ahh, but I never said the consumer's interest was factored into the decision. That is why I said you have to be careful to frame your argument. Getting the staffer of your Congress critter on the phone and explaining that you want the ability to get local programming from anywhere will just fall on deaf ears. And that is what I've been trying to make you understand. If you want to change the law, frame it better.It is "more of a truly capital marketplace"? Are you kidding me? This translates to "I'll be able to get what I want". Except that the way the business is structured now is a true marketplace. Has been evolving for over four decades. People confuse my statements for how businesses run now for my opinion. You want a la carte? Stop feeding the system. If you can't do without, you are simply feeding the system but damning the machine, which is the most hypocritical argument ever.I have been trying to change the law. I've spoken to the staffers of my Congress critters. Good luck on your end, because your demands are so outrageous as they currently stand you'd be lucky to be heard.

Just as I assumed it would happen - you simply have no vision or capacity to understand very simple premises. So, your not interested in the "consumer" hmmm -- guess you forgot the type of economic system that we have in the US. Without the end user -- or consumer -- there would be no media - period. As for, "getting local programming from anywhere will fall on deaf ears" --- well now, guess that proves my arguement also -- remember me saying that the politicians are in the pockets of the NAB and the nets and the sat companies -- ohhh, but your gonna talk to congressional staffers -- LOL -- have fun chasing their butts -- see how many votes a staffer can pull on the house or senate floor. This thread has basically run its course --- you are stuck in the 1950's -- guess your one of those trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I am for competition and open markets -- hmmmm, sounds like a fairly good plan compared to yours - and on that note we part company --- I am sure I haven't enlightened you on the concept of progress and competition and open markets -- but then again how could I enlighten you --- you probably still watch reruns of Joe McCarthy. Good bye

 

[Greg Bimson]

Just as I assumed it would happen - you simply have no vision or capacity to understand very simple premises. So, your not interested in the "consumer" hmmm -- guess you forgot the type of economic system that we have in the US. Without the end user -- or consumer -- there would be no media - period.

No, I haven't forgotten our economic system. Perhaps you have. The most watched programming on any given multichannel system comes from the local affiliates of the big four networks. Which means that although these local stations are free-to-air, most people still watch network programming via cable or satellite. Without "thinking" about the consumer regarding their method of delivery, the local channels still pull in the most watched content. So they are certainly still being watched by consumers without focusing on choice.

As for, "getting local programming from anywhere will fall on deaf ears" --- well now, guess that proves my arguement also -- remember me saying that the politicians are in the pockets of the NAB and the nets and the sat companies.

Let me make this very simple for you. One Mr. Charles Ergen, CEO of Dish Network, tried in 1999 to gain the ability for "getting local programming from anywhere", and it fell on deaf ears. Mr. Ergen is CEO of a company in the rebroadcasting business, yet you feel compelled that Congress will change the law because of your beliefs.

This thread has basically run its course --- you are stuck in the 1950's -- guess your one of those trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I am for competition and open markets -- hmmmm, sounds like a fairly good plan compared to yours - and on that note we part company --- I am sure I haven't enlightened you on the concept of progress and competition and open markets -- but then again how could I enlighten you --- you probably still watch reruns of Joe McCarthy. Good bye

Notice how you've simply spun your wheels on this issue with me. And I am much easier to get along with than those in DC that can change these matters.

So, instead, I get labeled with names from you, and my intellect is questioned. Yet you've still gotten nowhere. All I need to do is go back to the very first sentence in your last post:

Just as I assumed it would happen - you simply have no vision or capacity to understand very simple premises.

And if you take that tact to try and change the law, you will just be understood to be simple.

 

[veeper2006]

No, I haven't forgotten our economic system. Perhaps you have. The most watched programming on any given multichannel system comes from the local affiliates of the big four networks. Which means that although these local stations are free-to-air, most people still watch network programming via cable or satellite. Without "thinking" about the consumer regarding their method of delivery, the local channels still pull in the most watched content. So they are certainly still being watched by consumers without focusing on choice.Let me make this very simple for you. One Mr. Charles Ergen, CEO of Dish Network, tried in 1999 to gain the ability for "getting local programming from anywhere", and it fell on deaf ears. Mr. Ergen is CEO of a company in the rebroadcasting business, yet you feel compelled that Congress will change the law because of your beliefs.Notice how you've simply spun your wheels on this issue with me. And I am much easier to get along with than those in DC that can change these matters.

So, instead, I get labeled with names from you, and my intellect is questioned. Yet you've still gotten nowhere. All I need to do is go back to the very first sentence in your last post:And if you take that tact to try and change the law, you will just be understood to be simple.

What kind of perv are you -- guess it threatens your manhood it you don't have the last word. Now your just boring me --- go back to joe mccarthy --- you want to never have progress --- geez, guess your wife must hate talking to you at dinner, not everyone is a know it all like youLOL but then again, your right -- i am sure everyone questions your intellect -- I know I do. Again, goodbye -- now, you got enough guts to drop it? LOL

 

[Greg Bimson]

I never said I was letting it go. Once again, another assumption by you. Still the need to call me names. Isn't it time for you to enjoy recess yet?

 

[veeper2006]

I never said I was letting it go. Once again, another assumption by you. Still the need to call me names. Isn't it time for you to enjoy recess yet?

LOL - knew it would kill you if you didn't have the last word -- bit competitive for a loser aren't ya?

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'm not the one that said a tearful goodbye. Twice. Seems as though you can't let it go.

One must work within the system in order to change it. The powerful CEO of Dish Network tried to get exactly what you wanted, to no avail. Once the legislation was passed in November, 1999, Mr. Ergen released a statement:

Congratulations go to the broadcasters for a hard fought victory in Congress," said Charlie Ergen, CEO and chairman of EchoStar. "We’re disappointed that the bill didn’t go further to protect the rights of consumers and does not allow consumers the freedom of choice to watch the network channels they choose.

Dish Network still used the law to provide local channels.

Dish Network has lost the ability to provide "distant networks" (it now goes through a third party), because they could not fight within the system.

But, if you still feel like being Don Quixote, be my guest. Staying on your horse trying to slay the windmills of the networks is just foolish.

The position in your argument now is no different than that of Mr. Ergen at the end of the last decade. Yet you think YOU will be able to change it, all because of progress and technology. That same progress and technology was there when Mr. Ergen made his arguments.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Although this is quite comical - as are most threads about how its all the NAB and local stations fault - if one only examined an affiliate contract the station signs with the network it states specifically that they cannot sign an agreement with a MSO or DBS company to carry the network programming outside of their DMA.

So when people argue about how the networks want it and the NAB and Local Stations fight it, have the politicians in their pocket, and how antiquated the system is, one can only laugh knowing the truth.

 

[Greg Bimson]

But I also sympathize with veeper's plight. He is two hours away from four major metro centers, and the law puts him in only one of those. Should the law be changed? Yes. Can it be accomplished by simply forcing "open" competition? No.

If we are to change the law, we do not repeat the exact same tact as was given by Mr. Ergen in the late 1990's.

We need to come up with a new PLAN, not the same rehash about how bad the NAB is.

 

[veeper2006]

But I also sympathize with veeper's plight. He is two hours away from four major metro centers, and the law puts him in only one of those. Should the law be changed? Yes. Can it be accomplished by simply forcing "open" competition? No.

If we are to change the law, we do not repeat the exact same tact as was given by Mr. Ergen in the late 1990's.

We need to come up with a new PLAN, not the same rehash about how bad the NAB is.

From the web page of the NAB "

The record in this proceeding fully demonstrates that the Commission’s rulesgoverning retransmission consent and program exclusivity remain vital to fostering the Commission’s goals of competition in the video programming marketplace and broadcast localism, particularly in small and rural markets, as well as necessary to protecting
broadcasters’ right to freedom of contract. The free market process Congress established for retransmission consent evinced a clear intent to establish a marketplace for the rights to distribute broadcast signals, but not to dictate the outcome, or terms or conditions included in negotiations over those rights.
Contrary to complaints by various MVPDs, the retransmission consent system established by Congress is not broken. Rather, the system is beginning to work as Congress envisioned because emerging competition from DBS and other alternative MVPDs for the right to carry local broadcast signals has finally created genuine marketplace for retransmission consent rights. In other words, stripped to their essence,
most of the criticisms lodged against retransmission consent are really nothing more than objections to the new realities of competition among in the MVPD marketplace. Viewed in this light, it is apparent that the government intrusion into retransmission consent that the commenting MVPDs seek is neither warranted nor remotely consistent with
Congressional intent. Although the MVPDs allege that retransmission consent has failed to fulfill Congress’ aims to fortify the free, over-the-air broadcast system, and to promote competition in the video programming marketplace, their assertions have no basis."
Now tell us Greggie boy --- how long have you been a staffer for the NAB?? hmmmmm ​

 

[Greg Bimson]

Once again, you've assumed my position is my opinion. You have to fight my position, not my opinion.

I am simply trying to point out those who are unaware of history are doomed to repeat it. Simply trying to get the law changed by taking the exact same position as the Echostar CEO did in 1998 and 1999 will not get the law changed. Something else must happen.

Do you just want the futility to fight the broadcaster's windmills, slay the almighty NAB dragon, and pee into the headwind known as government and have it shower you in your face? Or do you truly want to get something done?

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

We need to come up with a new PLAN, not the same rehash about how bad the NAB is.

I guess they can rehash how bad the NAB is all they want as they aren't the ones keeping the Network Programming from Distants on out of market systems - so it just avoids the real stumbling block.

From the web page of the NAB "

The record in this proceeding fully demonstrates that the Commission’s rulesgoverning retransmission consent and program exclusivity remain vital to fostering the Commission’s goals of competition in the video programming marketplace and broadcast localism, particularly in small and rural markets, as well as necessary to protecting
broadcasters’ right to freedom of contract. The free market process Congress established for retransmission consent evinced a clear intent to establish a marketplace for the rights to distribute broadcast signals, but not to dictate the outcome, or terms or conditions included in negotiations over those rights.
Contrary to complaints by various MVPDs, the retransmission consent system established by Congress is not broken. Rather, the system is beginning to work as Congress envisioned because emerging competition from DBS and other alternative MVPDs for the right to carry local broadcast signals has finally created genuine marketplace for retransmission consent rights. In other words, stripped to their essence,
most of the criticisms lodged against retransmission consent are really nothing more than objections to the new realities of competition among in the MVPD marketplace. Viewed in this light, it is apparent that the government intrusion into retransmission consent that the commenting MVPDs seek is neither warranted nor remotely consistent with
Congressional intent. Although the MVPDs allege that retransmission consent has failed to fulfill Congress’ aims to fortify the free, over-the-air broadcast system, and to promote competition in the video programming marketplace, their assertions have no basis."
Now tell us Greggie boy --- how long have you been a staffer for the NAB?? hmmmmm ​

And all the is nice, but it doesn't matter when the Network affiliation agreements prohibit a station from signing a contract with a MSO for their network programming outside of the local stations DMA.

Even if the NAB said nothing, it wouldn't mean squat as the network affiliation agreement does not allow it.

 

[johnml]

It is really a shame so many people have forgotten how to use a TV antenna. I have only CBS and NBC affiliates in my DMA but by using a TV antenna I can add about another 20 digital channels that are clearer than my satellite delivered channels. I don't have to pay a monthly subscription fee for them either.

I agree. It's notlike the old days where you had to move the antenna to get different stations. With HI-DEF the signal either comes in or not, no moving it. It's great

 

[veeper2006]

I agree. It's notlike the old days where you had to move the antenna to get different stations. With HI-DEF the signal either comes in or not, no moving it. It's great

Originally Posted by boba
It is really a shame so many people have forgotten how to use a TV antenna. RIGHT -- YOU KNOW, IT REALLY IS A SHAME THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CLUE THAT AN ANTENNA WON'T REACH AROUND THE EARTH NOR WILL IT REACH INTO RURAL AREAS. DUH --- GET REAL, DON'T TALK ABOUT A PROBLEM YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

ON A SIDE NOTE - IN ORDER TO CURE MY "PROBLEM" OF NOT ACCESSING LOCALS OVER SATELLITE OR CABLE -- I HAVE DECIDED TO NOT HAVE ANY -- READ THE LOCAL PAPER -- AND LET YOU FOLKS SUPPORT THE MILLIONAIRES IN THE BROADCAST INDUSTRY AND THEIR BUDDIES IN CONGRESS -- I HOPE THEY BLEED YOU WELL