Network waiver requirements
- Thread starter cartdan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 6K
- Status
Speaking of,
Now looking at my CBS out of Phoenix, had a great signal all day, and now "No Signal"
Maybe they have signed off for the night with their Digital as they have no upcoming HD programming? I do get it a little snowy on the Analog ANT and fine through the Sat, but no signal at all from the Digital OTA.
PBS has done this as well, signed off for the night, but they have "sign off" on the guide.
Does many networks do this often? Shut down the Digital transmitters at night?
FOX has also shut down DTV transmitters for the night.
If programming in HD is on later one (late baseball games, etc) will these networks most likley keep them up until it is over? I imagine in the next year these will be on 24 hours a day?
Now looking at my CBS out of Phoenix, had a great signal all day, and now "No Signal"
Maybe they have signed off for the night with their Digital as they have no upcoming HD programming? I do get it a little snowy on the Analog ANT and fine through the Sat, but no signal at all from the Digital OTA.
PBS has done this as well, signed off for the night, but they have "sign off" on the guide.
Does many networks do this often? Shut down the Digital transmitters at night?
FOX has also shut down DTV transmitters for the night.
If programming in HD is on later one (late baseball games, etc) will these networks most likley keep them up until it is over? I imagine in the next year these will be on 24 hours a day?
DNS & The LAW
OK, here's how it works.
SHIVA set up a process by which DTV can broadcast a signal that originates from outside your " Local Market Area" ( which is designated by a totally biased "Nelson Media Group" ). In order for DTV to do this we must 1) Prove that there is no way possible for you to get a signal from the local affiliate(s). 2) Request a waiver from the local affiliate stating that they are aware you want their network from another market area and are willing to allow DTV to broadcast that signal to you.
Reasoning- If you are able to pick up the local CBS that runs a commercial for a local car dealership, then you are more likely to visit/buy from that dealership. If you do not have the ability... then they don't care about you... get whatever affiliate you want. If you have the ability to pick them up and you chose not to... you are making a choice not to possibly give them your money. I know... how cruel the advertisers are actually the ones making the fuss over this.
The FCC upholds SHIVA and does periodical check accounts that have DNS ( distant network services ) active. Not by knocking on your door, but checking what phone number your IRD is calling back from, what address that phone number is listed to, and where the signal is actually being accessed. Don't believe me? DTV has a whole department set up that deals with nothing but signal theft. They are called SI or Signal Integrity.
If for some strange reason you KNOW that you are unable to receive a signal from the local affiliate and they deny a waiver, you have 45 days to request DTV to do an on site signal meter test. That is 45 days to REQUEST it, not to have it preformed. Yes, they will send you paperwork, you have to fill it out, send it in, and the waiting is EXTREMELY ridiculous ( due to not enough " on site testers" available across the nation ).
If you have multiple affiliates of 1 network and you are going through waivers... all affiliates must grant a waiver before DTV can broadcast that DNS. If even 1 out of 5 local CBS affiliates deny you.... you'll be calling back in 60 days to resubmit.
The loop hole in this was not too hard to figure out... but it is still tricky. I wish you all the best luck, and I hope for the few of you that have already " moved " you don't get caught.
Your Friendly DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
< edited after realizing I didn't use spell check >
OK, here's how it works.
SHIVA set up a process by which DTV can broadcast a signal that originates from outside your " Local Market Area" ( which is designated by a totally biased "Nelson Media Group" ). In order for DTV to do this we must 1) Prove that there is no way possible for you to get a signal from the local affiliate(s). 2) Request a waiver from the local affiliate stating that they are aware you want their network from another market area and are willing to allow DTV to broadcast that signal to you.
Reasoning- If you are able to pick up the local CBS that runs a commercial for a local car dealership, then you are more likely to visit/buy from that dealership. If you do not have the ability... then they don't care about you... get whatever affiliate you want. If you have the ability to pick them up and you chose not to... you are making a choice not to possibly give them your money. I know... how cruel the advertisers are actually the ones making the fuss over this.
The FCC upholds SHIVA and does periodical check accounts that have DNS ( distant network services ) active. Not by knocking on your door, but checking what phone number your IRD is calling back from, what address that phone number is listed to, and where the signal is actually being accessed. Don't believe me? DTV has a whole department set up that deals with nothing but signal theft. They are called SI or Signal Integrity.
If for some strange reason you KNOW that you are unable to receive a signal from the local affiliate and they deny a waiver, you have 45 days to request DTV to do an on site signal meter test. That is 45 days to REQUEST it, not to have it preformed. Yes, they will send you paperwork, you have to fill it out, send it in, and the waiting is EXTREMELY ridiculous ( due to not enough " on site testers" available across the nation ).
If you have multiple affiliates of 1 network and you are going through waivers... all affiliates must grant a waiver before DTV can broadcast that DNS. If even 1 out of 5 local CBS affiliates deny you.... you'll be calling back in 60 days to resubmit.
The loop hole in this was not too hard to figure out... but it is still tricky. I wish you all the best luck, and I hope for the few of you that have already " moved " you don't get caught.
Your Friendly DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
< edited after realizing I didn't use spell check >
It is not the advertisers that make any fuss about anything, but it is the networks that want to maximize advertising slot price by increasing the reached households rather than the actual advertiser complaining.
Networks are able to charge a lot more for advertising if they are forced to be viewed by anyone wanting to view their network rather than viewing a national broadcast of that network. Only allowing national broadcasting removes many potential smaller market advertisers from the opportunity to advertise in a local market, and not only reduces potential revenue for them, but makes the local affiliate useless, as their primary purpose is to sell advertising space with a mix of national and local programming.
If everyone could choose what affiliate in the country they want to watch, the potential local viewer base for a local affiliate goes down, they charge less for advertising, and the advertisers receive less of a return compared to if the viewer base was much larger. The advertiser has no legal position to complain about anything, they operate in a free market where they can advertise or not advertise at their will, it is the networks that are forced to comply with certain standards set forth by government while conduct business in an open market selling advertising slots at equilibrium market value (whatever anyone is willing to pay)
Less potential local viewers = less networks can justifiably charge = lower effect of advertisement for local business.
The way it really works makes perfect sense, it seems fair to give smaller markets every advantage possible, otherwise all you would see on local stations would be big Pharma ads........................
Gov is always looking out for the little guy.
Networks are able to charge a lot more for advertising if they are forced to be viewed by anyone wanting to view their network rather than viewing a national broadcast of that network. Only allowing national broadcasting removes many potential smaller market advertisers from the opportunity to advertise in a local market, and not only reduces potential revenue for them, but makes the local affiliate useless, as their primary purpose is to sell advertising space with a mix of national and local programming.
If everyone could choose what affiliate in the country they want to watch, the potential local viewer base for a local affiliate goes down, they charge less for advertising, and the advertisers receive less of a return compared to if the viewer base was much larger. The advertiser has no legal position to complain about anything, they operate in a free market where they can advertise or not advertise at their will, it is the networks that are forced to comply with certain standards set forth by government while conduct business in an open market selling advertising slots at equilibrium market value (whatever anyone is willing to pay)
Less potential local viewers = less networks can justifiably charge = lower effect of advertisement for local business.
The way it really works makes perfect sense, it seems fair to give smaller markets every advantage possible, otherwise all you would see on local stations would be big Pharma ads........................
Gov is always looking out for the little guy.
Dns
I'll have to look at the files on the reasoning again, it's been a while.... but I can assure you that everything else was correct.
I apologize in advance if that info was incorrect.
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
update: I stand corrected. However everything else was/ is correct.
I'll have to look at the files on the reasoning again, it's been a while.... but I can assure you that everything else was correct.
I apologize in advance if that info was incorrect.
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
update: I stand corrected. However everything else was/ is correct.
You are both kind of saying the same thing. The (real) issue the consumer has is the fact that this is a PAY SERVICE. Example, I have XM radio, the reason I do is because I do not like commercials. Now I have the option to hear Lewis & Floorwax, for FREE with advertising on KRFX or I can use my pay service (XM) and listen to them commercial-free.
The way I see it is screw the network and the advertiser ... odds are I don't want to buy your crap anyway ... enter my Tivo ... I FF>> through all local and national ads ANYWAY, so does it really matter if the station I receive is broadcast from Denver or LA or NY, no it does not.
Local business has no chance of getting my business from TV ads anyway ... unless they are giving away free 5500 Sq Ft homes free with with my donut and 12oz juice purchase or something good like that. If I need something locally I'll look locally, not because I saw it on TV.
The rambling point I am making is if I pay, I choose. If you pay then I don't. Considering that analog is free and digital is not (or not available) leave than analog to those who don't want to pay.
The way I see it is screw the network and the advertiser ... odds are I don't want to buy your crap anyway ... enter my Tivo ... I FF>> through all local and national ads ANYWAY, so does it really matter if the station I receive is broadcast from Denver or LA or NY, no it does not.
Local business has no chance of getting my business from TV ads anyway ... unless they are giving away free 5500 Sq Ft homes free with with my donut and 12oz juice purchase or something good like that. If I need something locally I'll look locally, not because I saw it on TV.
The rambling point I am making is if I pay, I choose. If you pay then I don't. Considering that analog is free and digital is not (or not available) leave than analog to those who don't want to pay.
What about folks that "don't have" a landline? My STBs haven't been connected to a phone line in yearsdirectvrep said:
directvrep, so my situation is I live in the Grand Rapids MI DMA and my local affiliate WWMT denied my request for a waiver. Also WWTV (Big Rapids/Traverse City) and WLNS (Lansing) also denied me. So I called the individual station and told them my problem and WWMT and WWTV changed their minds and granted me waivers. WLNS on the other hand said that their owners Young Broadcasting don't grant any kind of waivers so I am basically screwed right? Even though I can't get a acceptable signal from them? I say that is total BS! So I will get my CBS shows on SD *puke!*
Why does the signal theft dept handle this?? There is no signal being stolen, it is being paid for. Also, I have yet to find any United State Code that states that lying for a tv station is illegal and I found nothing in the SHIVA that states that it is illegal on the customers end. Yes it states that if the satellite company is caught giving distants when the customer doesnt qualify for it, they get fined and yes in a civil court, D* or E* may want to recoup their money but I see nothing that states that the customer will be fined or jailed. I think that this is one of those gray areas where its not illegal but morally wrong. So listen to the guy on your left shoulder or your right shoulder and git-r-done.
Sparker, why don't you take a digital picture of your TV set during CSI or some of the CBS prime time show and send it to CBS execs in New York, telling them you desperately want to watch their programs, but the guys at WLNS won't let you. (For added impact, I'd blow the picture(s) up to 8x10 and send your correspondence via FedEx.)
Send a top CBS exec copies of your correspondence, and see what happens.
I will tell you that major corporation executives often get a charge out of helping a single viewer. So you might want to check the Viacom website and get the names of a handful of top CBS executives and send your package to each of them.
And you always could try the same tactic with Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone.
Let them know you realize they all have far bigger things to worry about, but you would desperately like to watch all those CBS programs in HD...or even acceptable SD.
One call from any of them to the appropriate WLNS (or Young Broadcasting) exec would do the trick for you.
Who knows?
Think outside the box.
You have got little to lose.
(I'd also let my Congressman and senators know about this BS from WLNS. They are about to vote on extending SHVIA and there is at least one proposal that would allow DBS to show any channel which is shown by local cable companies.)
Send a top CBS exec copies of your correspondence, and see what happens.
I will tell you that major corporation executives often get a charge out of helping a single viewer. So you might want to check the Viacom website and get the names of a handful of top CBS executives and send your package to each of them.
And you always could try the same tactic with Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone.
Let them know you realize they all have far bigger things to worry about, but you would desperately like to watch all those CBS programs in HD...or even acceptable SD.
One call from any of them to the appropriate WLNS (or Young Broadcasting) exec would do the trick for you.
Who knows?
Think outside the box.
You have got little to lose.
(I'd also let my Congressman and senators know about this BS from WLNS. They are about to vote on extending SHVIA and there is at least one proposal that would allow DBS to show any channel which is shown by local cable companies.)
Illegal
I checked the site before I went to work today and wanted to make sure before I posted anything. I called the FCC during my workday just to confirm. By "moving" into a white area without actually being there is considered " Intent to defraud ", by knowingly providing false information which you are aware will be provided to a federal agency.
Signal theft is when you are unlawfully accessing and having DTV signal decoded for personal gain. It's considered unlawful due to you providing false information in .... what is it? .... an intent to defraud DTV.
By DTV providing a fraudulent signal to un-qualified customers ( aware of their part in this or not) DTV can be sued. In turn DTV can, has, and WILL sue for reparations.
Sorry guys... don't blame me, I just work there.
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
I checked the site before I went to work today and wanted to make sure before I posted anything. I called the FCC during my workday just to confirm. By "moving" into a white area without actually being there is considered " Intent to defraud ", by knowingly providing false information which you are aware will be provided to a federal agency.
Signal theft is when you are unlawfully accessing and having DTV signal decoded for personal gain. It's considered unlawful due to you providing false information in .... what is it? .... an intent to defraud DTV.
By DTV providing a fraudulent signal to un-qualified customers ( aware of their part in this or not) DTV can be sued. In turn DTV can, has, and WILL sue for reparations.
Sorry guys... don't blame me, I just work there.
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
directvrep: the problem is there is no FCC fine for the broadcaster when they are denying a request without just cause. I know the broadcaster has specific rules to follow, they have an expense when they have to research each claim for a customer that gets no signal and they want to claim as many eyeballs as they can. But many of the denials are without cause.
The advertiser reasoning is bogus. I generally do not get my local newspaper because 1) it sucks and 2) I read it for free at work ;-) (but I didn't get it even before that). Almost daily I stop at a mini-mart to grab a coffee and a newspaper from another city because their news is more balanced IMO, it covers the sports teams I like; just overall is better. I listen to internet radio most of the day for the same reason. Should the local car dealer force me to read the local newspaper, listen to local radio?
Look at my situation: there is no local WB so there is no way D* can give me WB; there has to be a local WB and that local station has to be made available to D*. If I 'move', that area does have a local WB. I concur that I am defrauding D* by providing false information, yet WB should be happy because they get another viewer. How does that hurt anyone? (Yes, it hurts the other local stations because their eyeball count goes down by one).
I am complaining about the general rules. I understand why they were set up: to protect a business which really grates my Adam Smith/free market ideals. These rules should be completely blown up. I know about narrow casting, that a dish in Tampa cannot 'see' local networks from Detroit, that it'd be unprofitable for D* to broadcast everything everywhere; but to deny me the network feed from WB only because there is no local WB is inane.
The advertiser reasoning is bogus. I generally do not get my local newspaper because 1) it sucks and 2) I read it for free at work ;-) (but I didn't get it even before that). Almost daily I stop at a mini-mart to grab a coffee and a newspaper from another city because their news is more balanced IMO, it covers the sports teams I like; just overall is better. I listen to internet radio most of the day for the same reason. Should the local car dealer force me to read the local newspaper, listen to local radio?
Look at my situation: there is no local WB so there is no way D* can give me WB; there has to be a local WB and that local station has to be made available to D*. If I 'move', that area does have a local WB. I concur that I am defrauding D* by providing false information, yet WB should be happy because they get another viewer. How does that hurt anyone? (Yes, it hurts the other local stations because their eyeball count goes down by one).
I am complaining about the general rules. I understand why they were set up: to protect a business which really grates my Adam Smith/free market ideals. These rules should be completely blown up. I know about narrow casting, that a dish in Tampa cannot 'see' local networks from Detroit, that it'd be unprofitable for D* to broadcast everything everywhere; but to deny me the network feed from WB only because there is no local WB is inane.
I think if someone is willing to pay for another city's local channel to get what they want, they should be able to do that. In my situation I have my local DMA's channels through Directv. I want the distant net CBS-HD channel due to not having a quality signal OTA here. If I pay for that distant net while not replacing my local DMA's channels, then what is so illegal about that?
Dns
I didn't make the laws, and believe me... I know EXACTLY where you are coming from. I just have to abide by them. I kinda get tired of people blaming it on DTV though... Know what I mean?
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
I didn't make the laws, and believe me... I know EXACTLY where you are coming from. I just have to abide by them. I kinda get tired of people blaming it on DTV though... Know what I mean?
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
directvrep: Not blaming you or D* either. I know it's all the FCC and you guys just have to follow the laws. The FCC is killing the multispectrum broadcast technology because they know it would remove license auctions and the revenue it generates.
I just know my luck, that I’ll move and get busted, even though I’ve been a loyal subscriber for 6 years and have a legitimate second physical address; that I only visit three weeks a year.
I just know my luck, that I’ll move and get busted, even though I’ve been a loyal subscriber for 6 years and have a legitimate second physical address; that I only visit three weeks a year.
while direcTVrep is doing an excellent job of explaining this, I just want to add a few alternatives for you all that are legal.
Considering you are denied automatically out of local station policy, you have a right to challenge that denial. You can also pay for your own independent signal tests and submit the challenge. While those tests may prove adequate signal strength you may still win based on poor image quality due to multipath as verified by the independent test facility. Once the challenge is submitted, the station may choose to pay for and conduct tests of its own to try to prove your independent tests were invalid. The FCC will decide based on the challenging evidence submitted.
On the practical side of this, if you are serious and you definitly have a signal quality issue, you can pay for the tests and go to the mat with your broadcaster. In all likelihood, your local broadcaster will not conduct the tests necessary to challenge your claim due to making a smart business decision. You are just not worth the cost of tests and paperwork to save your viewership. Your waiver will be granted.
What I do think is unrealistic is for you to think that DirecTV or Echostar would pay for the challenge tests. However it is quite realistic to think you can win if your signal quality is, indeed, poor. Now if you receive excellent signal and simply wish to "pay" for out of market channels, then sorry, you have two choices and that is to comply with the law as it stands or cross over to the dark side and commit fraud, signal theft or whatever.
Locally, we have an independent company that conducts these tests and I learned about the waiver challenges they have performed successfully based on what I described above from their experience.
directvrep-
I do have questions specifically for you:
Once a waiver is granted, have you ever seen where a station will challenge and win a reversal of that waiver at a later point in time?
Consider the unique situation where a waiver is granted from a station. Then the network affiliate is sold to another station. Your waiver continues in effect with the dbs provider for reason of ignorance or indifference. What is the process whereby that waiver is reviewed or revoked based on a new station taking over the network affiliate? Assume the new station has high quality picture.
Finally, A waiver is granted for the CBS national feed through Echostar. What would be the process one would need to go through to have that apply to DirecTV?
I have ideas but wanted your experience on any of this.
I apreciate the way you handle some of the not so nice/emotional responses. Your character and professionalism are to be admired!
Thanks
Considering you are denied automatically out of local station policy, you have a right to challenge that denial. You can also pay for your own independent signal tests and submit the challenge. While those tests may prove adequate signal strength you may still win based on poor image quality due to multipath as verified by the independent test facility. Once the challenge is submitted, the station may choose to pay for and conduct tests of its own to try to prove your independent tests were invalid. The FCC will decide based on the challenging evidence submitted.
On the practical side of this, if you are serious and you definitly have a signal quality issue, you can pay for the tests and go to the mat with your broadcaster. In all likelihood, your local broadcaster will not conduct the tests necessary to challenge your claim due to making a smart business decision. You are just not worth the cost of tests and paperwork to save your viewership. Your waiver will be granted.
What I do think is unrealistic is for you to think that DirecTV or Echostar would pay for the challenge tests. However it is quite realistic to think you can win if your signal quality is, indeed, poor. Now if you receive excellent signal and simply wish to "pay" for out of market channels, then sorry, you have two choices and that is to comply with the law as it stands or cross over to the dark side and commit fraud, signal theft or whatever.
Locally, we have an independent company that conducts these tests and I learned about the waiver challenges they have performed successfully based on what I described above from their experience.
directvrep-
I do have questions specifically for you:
Once a waiver is granted, have you ever seen where a station will challenge and win a reversal of that waiver at a later point in time?
Consider the unique situation where a waiver is granted from a station. Then the network affiliate is sold to another station. Your waiver continues in effect with the dbs provider for reason of ignorance or indifference. What is the process whereby that waiver is reviewed or revoked based on a new station taking over the network affiliate? Assume the new station has high quality picture.
Finally, A waiver is granted for the CBS national feed through Echostar. What would be the process one would need to go through to have that apply to DirecTV?
I have ideas but wanted your experience on any of this.
I apreciate the way you handle some of the not so nice/emotional responses. Your character and professionalism are to be admired!
Thanks
Don Landis said:
First of all, it's not a problem to be nice to you guys.... compared to what I hear daily, this is a walk in the park.
As per your questions.... they are a little harder to answer. I'll take them one step at a time.
Have I seen waivers granted, then challenged? Yes... more frequently in the past few months than ever, and more often than you might imagine.
As per the "new station " question.... that is the most common reason for a waiver being challenged. When the new owner takes over they MUST update any changes in network broadcast, signal strength, location, or even the frequency modulation ( if one happens to occur ). The FCC in turn updates DTV's d/b showing the changes. Then DTV sends records of ALL residents that have been permitted waivers by the previous owner for possible challenge. If ( and most cases when ) the local affiliate challenges a waiver the signal is IMMEDIATELY disconnected from that customers account and filed for review, possible reparations, and customer disputes. If the station does not have a valid reason for challenging the waiver already granted, then the customer will continue to receive the signal ( most times without even knowing that the ownership changed).
As per transferring waivers from one carrier from another.... it's (almost) not possible.
The distributor of your service must petition the local affiliate for eligibility to broadcast a DNS to your physical location.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE: If you have previously been granted a PHYSICAL PAPER WAIVER from ALL LOCAL AFFILIATES OF THE NETWORK YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO GET, then you may submit these via DTV's SHVIA management. This can be done via fax or snail mail. DTV MUST HAVE A COPY OF THIS WAIVER BEFORE transmitting the DNS and it MUST be verified through the local affiliates.
More than glad to assist. Anything else, feel free to ask.
DTV Res Spec
white_knight_2010@yahoo.com
- Status
