Tired of Waiting: My Quest for Significantly Viewed

[jhamps10]

yes I agree with ya iceberg, and those who got their dns illeaglly should be cut off. but it is a shame that those who legally get dns channels have to lose their one and only option. Personally the only reason I would want sv channels in my area is to get more of my local news and weather. Something that our E* DMA does not do much of.

 

[jrbdmb]

Significantly Viewed is covered by the same statute that Distant Network signals are covered by, but isn't in a different section? (In fact, all satellite transmission of OTA stations, including local-into-local, is covered by SHVERA.)

And is there any evidence that Dish is illegally providing SV stations?

Not to be argumentative, but it isn't clear to me that SV stations will be yanked on December 01. Has anything been published to show this, or has anyone lost SV channels yet?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Uh, no one is supposed to be losing DISTANT networks, yet. I think the pulling of the stations at this time is for the affected subscribers to bombard Congress before they reconvene after the election.

Significantly Viewed is covered by the same statute that Distant Network signals are covered by, but isn't in a different section? (In fact, all satellite transmission of OTA stations, including local-into-local, is covered by SHVERA.)

The injunction covers section 17 USC 119. Dish Network has been informed they must cease use of the license on 1 December. This license covers:

1) distant analog signals, no matter if a subscriber is white-area, has a waiver, or and RV/Trucker waiver;
2) distant digital signals;
3) signficantly-viewed signals; and,
4) superstations.

The injunction covers any signal from ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX using the license.

So:

1) all distant analog signals go away for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX;
2) all distant digital signals go away for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX which use the license (and I believe this will cover CBS in HD because it looks like a blanket waiver;
3) all significantly-viewed signals will go away for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX; and
4) superstations remain unaffected because none of them are ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX.

 

[waltinvt]

I'm going to add my 2 cents here since Vt was one of the states chuck listed and it also epitomizes the need for DNS & SV.

Do you people remember a couple of years ago when Dish was trying to "rally the troops" to contact congress for passage of legislation that would allow HD DNS?

Some of us were personally contacted by Dish and I myself was contacted by the Government Relations Dept in Washington DC.

Remember the DTC (Digital Transition Coalition) and the "I Want My HD web sites? Remember Charlie's statement to congress that Dish was ready to "immediately" launch all 4 HD DNS just as soon as the bill passed?

Well they passed SHVERA in Nov '04. What ever happened to those HD DNS? Dish has a pattern of grandstanding and embellishing statements to manipulate PR, all the while having it's own agenda that may be different than what it is portraying.

That said, congress does the same exact thing. They hype how much they're helping Joe public while behind the scenes catering to the lobbyist de-jur, which in this case was the NAB - the collective voice of all the network affiliates - the ones controlling ALL the campaign air time, which has been worth more that gold & oil combined these days.

The bottom line - the window of opprotunity has probably passed for Dish to gain enough public attention to force anything out of congress before the election. This latest scheme is too little, too late.

What we need to concentrate on now is getting some real legislation in the works that guarantees digital feeds of all the networks to everyone.

If the affiliates can't prove you "served", they loose retran rights - period. At that point the rights automatically go to your provider for HD DNS until if and when they can provide HD LiLs.

This would be a must carry situation however. Your provider would have to offer one or the other, HD DNS or HD LiLs - everywhere. No skimming the cream off the top in high density areas.

Congress needs to mandate now that if you want to be in the business of providing television signals for profit, you must provide at least the 6 major network's digital feed and at the same quality as it is being broadcast and to any customer that wants it and that is not being served by their respective affiliate. It's that simple.

The stations and the satellite companies have had plenty of time. Now it's our turn.

 

[ThomasRz]

Greg has it exactly right. I would only add there is nothing that prevents E* from yanking signals in any order, at any time as long as they meet the 12/1 date. I also point out that the terms local and distant are not mutually exclusive with SV. Station X can be local (for its own DMA), SV (for any community on the FCC list) and distant (for everyone else). All network SV from E* will cease on 12/1. This isn't rocket science. The statutory license will be unavailable. Continuing to rebroadcast will not only will put Charlie in contempt of court (frog march time) but would also be copyright infringement. Not even Mr. Ergen is that arrogant...or is he? With regard to CBS HD - there is nothing special about its legal status - no license - no rebroadcast. The only advantage that this service had was because CBS corporate was also the local affiliate owner, they could waive the Grade B requirement. They can't "waive" the copyright license requirement. Those who continue to believe that CBS HD is somehow special should remember how they claimed that the injunction would never happen and then when it did how the "agreement" would supersede it and when it didn't how Congress would come riding to the rescue.....

Uh, no one is supposed to be losing DISTANT networks, yet. I think the pulling of the stations at this time is for the affected subscribers to bombard Congress before they reconvene after the election.The injunction covers section 17 USC 119. Dish Network has been informed they must cease use of the license on 1 December. This license covers:

1) distant analog signals, no matter if a subscriber is white-area, has a waiver, or and RV/Trucker waiver;
2) distant digital signals;
3) signficantly-viewed signals; and,
4) superstations.

The injunction covers any signal from ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX using the license.

So:

1) all distant analog signals go away for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX;
2) all distant digital signals go away for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX which use the license (and I believe this will cover CBS in HD because it looks like a blanket waiver;
3) all significantly-viewed signals will go away for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX; and
4) superstations remain unaffected because none of them are ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX.

 

[Poke]

E-mail them see what they say! ceo@echostar.com

 

[ThomasRz]

Why would you believe the answer you received? Charlie doesn't have the best track record for honesty.

E-mail them see what they say! ceo@echostar.com

 

[ThomasRz]

non-local SV = DNS. Period. Full stop. Whether or not these DNS stations are offered by E* doesn't change their status. For your community there are locals and there are distants. SV can be local. SV can be distant. A station can even be both.

Significantly Viewed is covered by the same statute that Distant Network signals are covered by, but isn't in a different section? (In fact, all satellite transmission of OTA stations, including local-into-local, is covered by SHVERA.)

And is there any evidence that Dish is illegally providing SV stations?

Not to be argumentative, but it isn't clear to me that SV stations will be yanked on December 01. Has anything been published to show this, or has anyone lost SV channels yet?

 

[jhamps10]

I just sent dish network an e-mail of my own. Lets get everyone to bombard dish network with e-mails about this issue, then maybe we will get sv stations on faster than they have been.

"To whom it may Concern at dish network:
I am a Dish Network customer and I have a question, actually a request, regarding Significantly Viewed (SV) channels. First, I live 100 miles from St. Louis, MO and 75 miles from Terre Haute, IN and Evansville, IN; I live in Clay county, Illinois. I am technically in the St. Louis, MO DMA and receive their locals via Dish Network. Our local cable company provides area residents both the St. Louis and the Evansville, IN and the Terre Haute, IN locals, whereas Dish Network does not. According to the FCCs SV channel map there are a number of Evansville and Terre Haute locals that I am eligible to receive since they have been designated as "Significantly Viewed" in my area (based on zipcode...not DMA).

I noticed the Evansville and Terre Haute locals were recently been moved over the 110 satellite location (from the 105 satellite I believe). Technically, I should now be able to receive these significant by simply adding them to my account. According to FCC-05-187, Appendix C, Significantly Viewed List (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264821A1.pdfand) the FCC Information Sheet on Television Broadcast Channels on Satellite, May 2006, "satellite subscribers who receive local-into-local service may, under certain circumstances, receive individual stations from markets outside their DMA that are deemed "significantly viewed" in their community. It is up to the satellite carrier whether or not to offer significantly viewed stations and a subscriber must be subscribing to local-into-local service in his or her DMA to be eligible to receive significantly viewed stations."

Simply stated, the FCC has authorized Dish Network to provide customers (me) with SV. According to FCC-05-187, (Listing is below) Dish Network is authorized to provide me with two (2) Terre Haute area locals and at least one (1) Evansville local station. I may also add that the local PBS affilate in the terre haute DMA is actually located in Olney, Illinois which is 20 miles away from my house. However, we are only offered the St. louis PBS station, so therefore we do not receive our local PBS station that is received via cable. Therefore I am requesting that Dish Network add the following channels to our local Channel lineup:


Clay

( Offical listings per FCC listing) WTWO, 2, Terre Haute, IN (Channel 7902)WTHI-TV, 10 (Channel 7901) Terre Haute, IN, WTVW, 7, Evansville, IN(Channel 7368)

Extra Channels not included in the FCC list, but are offered on cable in our area:

WUSI, Olney, Illinois (Channel 7905), WFIE Evansville, IN (Channel 7367), WEHT Evansville, IN (Channel 7365).

I would like to see these channels added to the local lineup in Clay county, Illinois today. Effected zip codes: 62839,62899,62822,62854. Please reply to my request as soon as possible. Now I know that you guys are busy trying to keep customers who have Distant Networks, but please do not forget about the rest of your customer base."

 

[jhamps10]

I just recieved a response on my e-mail:

I forwarded this to my technical operations group that specializes in locals. Give me some time to possible work this out for you. I will have a response soon for the situation. On the other hand, usually it’s up to the providers to send us the feed for their local stations. As you know the FCC is very strict on what locals are being provided to certain areas and what locals cannot. Let me do some leg work from here and I’ll let you know. Again, feel free to contact me via email or by telephone. Thanks again!

Executive Communications

P.S. Even if nothing happens, I really appriecate them trying. Proves that some folks at dish network care about people.

 

[ThomasRz]

non-local SV = DNS. Period. Full stop. Whether or not these DNS stations are offered by E* doesn't change their status. For your community there are locals and there are distants. SV can be local. SV can be distant. A station can even be both.

I did not phrase this as elegantly as I should have. What I wanted to convey that any Significantly Viewed station that is NOT also a DMA local station is, by definition, a distant station. (A station is either local or distant (i.e. non-local)). SV is merely an additional qualifier. I did not mean to suggest that all DNS are Significantly Viewed. Sorry.

 

[PhilipPeake]

This seems like a perfect opportunity to rally support to fix the underlying problem. There should ne NO restrictions on viewing any channel you want to if it is broadcast *anywhere* ITC.

The artificial market divisions has had its day. Let competition happen. If my locals suck so baddly that I prefer to what someone elses in preference, well, thats the free market in operation -- they will shape up or go under.

The FCC needs to get out of the business of protecting local area monopolies.

 

[tnsprin]

I did not phrase this as elegantly as I should have. What I wanted to convey that any Significantly Viewed station that is NOT also a DMA local station is, by definition, a distant station. (A station is either local or distant (i.e. non-local)). SV is merely an additional qualifier. I did not mean to suggest that all DNS are Significantly Viewed. Sorry.

This is not what the Fcc says. They defined significantly viewed locals as essentially to be treated as locals even if not in the DMA. But who knows what will happen? Not me am not a lawyer or a Judge.

 

[kpc007]

This seems like a perfect opportunity to rally support to fix the underlying problem. There should ne NO restrictions on viewing any channel you want to if it is broadcast *anywhere* ITC.

The artificial market divisions has had its day. Let competition happen. If my locals suck so baddly that I prefer to what someone elses in preference, well, thats the free market in operation -- they will shape up or go under.

The FCC needs to get out of the business of protecting local area monopolies.

Totally agree! If, technically speaking, the customer is within a given spot beam I see no reason why we can't pick a local of our choice from all those within the spot beam. It's no sweat for Dish since all they need to do is assign the receiver code that aligns with the selected local.

All this DMA stuff has been legislated to protect TV station revenues, regardless whether or not they provide local info and ads to your particular location. I live 120 miles and two mountain chains from my assigned locals and have yet to hear anything regarding news from my locality. Hell, when they show the weather map my area of the DMA is not even on the screen. Now is that part of the deal made by the stations and FCC? According to the guidelines, they will get to count me into their totals for advertising revenue and I get local coverage. Could you imagine if they (Congress) mandated that if you live in the south you can only buy a Ford F-150 for your mode of personal transportation? Is that free market economics? No.....it's socialism!!

When I'm assigned to the stations DMA and they get credit for my viewing I just think they should provide what they're required to, period! Sorry for the rant.......just couldn't help myself. This whole thing is so out of wack its pitiful.

Here's a retorical question> Is there a way the little guy can force the local stations to provide what we're paying for? I know we have local news here since the stations in the next town (another DMA) cover my town with weather and local business advertising. However, I'm not authorized to view those stations. Please don't say...contact your local congressman! Yeah, that's like putting the fox in the hen house. Be real......

 

[Tower Guy]

The FCC needs to get out of the business of protecting local area monopolies.

The FCC is not the main government division for intellectual property protection. The programming on local stations is protected by Copyright law. The taking of intellectual property without permission and proper compensation should not be legal. The FCC works hard to insure that local monopolies do not exist, that's why the media cross ownership rules are still in force.

 

[Pepper]

Could you imagine if they (Congress) mandated that if you live in the south you can only buy a Ford F-150 for your mode of personal transportation?

Actually it's not congress it's the content owners who come up with agreements that their content is "exclusively" available from one station in a given DMA.

I like your analogy though, it would be more accurate to say if you want a Ford F-150 you are required to buy it from the local Ford dealer, because it is illegal for a dealer farther away to sell it to you.

 

[ThomasRz]

I am not sure why you think this. The FCC listing does not make a distinction among SV stations. I am not sure what metrics are used to place a station on the list but SV is not the same in the DBS context whatever the situation in cable. If what you said were true then SV would be covered under 122 license and be part of LIL packages. Congress specifically excluded DMA locals as SV for the purpose of DBS. As far as I can tell (practically speaking) SV(cable) = SV(DBS) + DMA_local because the law says that SV(DBS) = SV(cable) - DMA_local. It doesn't have to make sense. It's the law.

This is not what the Fcc says. They defined significantly viewed locals as essentially to be treated as locals even if not in the DMA. But who knows what will happen? Not me am not a lawyer or a Judge.

 

[ThomasRz]

I think your analogy fails. You have a choice of what vehicle to buy. Perhaps what is available is exactly what you want, perhaps not. What you desire is the ability to force Ford to sell you what you want even if they don't want to sell to you. If you pay someone to hotwire the Ford of your choice and deliver it to you, does it become right simply if you pay the hotwirer and give him a bag of cash to give to Ford? No, it is still theft. Theft is the taking of property without authorization with the intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of it. There is no exception because you hire a thief to do the work for you. There is no exception because you leave money or something else of value in exchange for the property. A DBS company typically does not own the material. It is only the delivery boy.

 

[kpc007]

I think your analogy fails. You have a choice of what vehicle to buy. Perhaps what is available is exactly what you want, perhaps not. What you desire is the ability to force Ford to sell you what you want even if they don't want to sell to you. If you pay someone to hotwire the Ford of your choice and deliver it to you, does it become right simply if you pay the hotwirer and give him a bag of cash to give to Ford? No, it is still theft. Theft is the taking of property without authorization with the intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of it. There is no exception because you hire a thief to do the work for you. There is no exception because you leave money or something else of value in exchange for the property. A DBS company typically does not own the material. It is only the delivery boy.

I'm sorry but you're flat wrong on this one! Cable can and will provide you SV programming automatically when Dish cannot legally provide the same content while in the exact same service location as the cable company. My point here is that there is no fairness in this market. Why should I be at a disadvantage just because I get my service over satellite vs. cable. That smacks of favoritism and is not consistent with free market economics. I should be offered the same opportunity as anyone else under the same circumstance.

Here is what I'm talking about> My friend lives 8 miles from me in the Altoona DMA. Not only does he get his locals from Altoona but he also gets Washington DC locals from my DMA. Yet, I can only get whats in my DMA (Washington DC) which is 120 miles from me. The DC stations have yet to cover my area (weather, news, ads) but the Altoona stations routinely provide that info for my town. And the kicker here is that if my friend went to Dish from cable, he would'nt be authorized those additional locals. In my case, I have no access to cable, as yet, but if the situation stays the same regarding access to local news I will leave when cable comes available.

Your comment shows how little you understand my point. The point is that my locals are taking credit for me and receiving $ from advertisers when they don't support that in any way. So I guess you could say that the stations are stealing from not only me (I pay for the locals) but from advertisers also!! They DO NOT provide the service as intended. I am forced into this situation by virtue of my location and status. Thats not the intended philosophy of this country, IMO.