Does this mean that if I don't recieve my locals through Dish or only if I CAN'T get them? What is "is"? I see loopholes, I like it.
WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 178
- Views 27K
Does this mean that if I don't recieve my locals through Dish or only if I CAN'T get them? What is "is"? I see loopholes, I like it.
It looks like it wants to force Dish to go ahead and put up LiL for all markets. Dish will have to pay 2x for markets it does not serve, once to the distant station and once to any local station, even in white areas. Essentially if you live in a white area Dish can sell you the distant only if Dish does not carry the local station. If they carry a local station of the cannot offer you a distant. If you are in a white area and have a local affiliate Dish does not carry they have to pay the local affiliate anyways.
It also looks like all the grandfathered distants are going away and if you get distants and Dish carries your market you will lose distants no matter what.
Essentially you really only will get a distant if your market does not have the affiliate. Dish will probably put all the remaining markets up quick to avoid paying 2x. SD 105 anyone?
It also looks like all the grandfathered distants are going away and if you get distants and Dish carries your market you will lose distants no matter what.
Essentially you really only will get a distant if your market does not have the affiliate. Dish will probably put all the remaining markets up quick to avoid paying 2x. SD 105 anyone?
I would bet that Dish would be going in front of the court asking for a 30 day delay pending the law change. They would probably have to agree to switch off all the distants that would be lost anyways (essentially all the markets with LiL, even if you are grandfathered or live in a white area).
I am actually SHOCKED to even see this mentioned!
Where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I NEVER thought I'd see the day this would even get on a proposed bill. Many folks who would rather have "other local/distant networks" (than their "crappy" locals) have made this suggestion many times over the years & it was always turned down flat by stations/networks.
I realize this would be ONLY for uncarried markets, but still...
So basically, E* could (conceivably) come into these uncarried local markets & say, instead of having to go to the expense of putting up the ONE local channel in St.Joe, MO (CBS), they would just put up ALL of the KC networks for the St.Joe DMA, since KC is ALREADY uplinked, & just give some $$$ to the St.Joe CBS in lieu of carriage. Actually, if the local stations would agree to this, this could actually get E* MORE subs in these small markets & maybe LESS money in the long run out of E*'s pocket, since there would not be the expense of getting these single stations uplinked. (this is NOT cheap, you know)
Well, as I said above, it might actually be cheaper in the long run & could get E* in these small 1-2 network markets much more quickly & efficiently, since they in all likelyhood have a nearby network already uplinked to pull from.
True, but again many of the uncarried DMA's are these kind.
BUT all of this doesn't really matter IF these locals do NOT agree to this - & frankly after going through all this over the years, I'll be actually surprised if this part actually PASSES & they agree to it!
Where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I NEVER thought I'd see the day this would even get on a proposed bill. Many folks who would rather have "other local/distant networks" (than their "crappy" locals) have made this suggestion many times over the years & it was always turned down flat by stations/networks.
I realize this would be ONLY for uncarried markets, but still...
So basically, E* could (conceivably) come into these uncarried local markets & say, instead of having to go to the expense of putting up the ONE local channel in St.Joe, MO (CBS), they would just put up ALL of the KC networks for the St.Joe DMA, since KC is ALREADY uplinked, & just give some $$$ to the St.Joe CBS in lieu of carriage. Actually, if the local stations would agree to this, this could actually get E* MORE subs in these small markets & maybe LESS money in the long run out of E*'s pocket, since there would not be the expense of getting these single stations uplinked. (this is NOT cheap, you know)
Well, as I said above, it might actually be cheaper in the long run & could get E* in these small 1-2 network markets much more quickly & efficiently, since they in all likelyhood have a nearby network already uplinked to pull from.
True, but again many of the uncarried DMA's are these kind.
BUT all of this doesn't really matter IF these locals do NOT agree to this - & frankly after going through all this over the years, I'll be actually surprised if this part actually PASSES & they agree to it!
Last edited:
I would laugh my ass off if this really worked and the law was passed!
I could care less about the distants, but it would be worth it just to see the look on Rupert's face when gets away saving 80 million dollars and not paying the networks a dime!
I didn't call my senators before, buw now that the law is introduced, I will call them to tell them to support it.
I could care less about the distants, but it would be worth it just to see the look on Rupert's face when gets away saving 80 million dollars and not paying the networks a dime!
I didn't call my senators before, buw now that the law is introduced, I will call them to tell them to support it.
Has the House of Representatives passed similar legislation? If not, all of this celebrating is for nothing, since you'll need the House to pass something then go to Conference Committee on it to iron out the differences before it can be presented to the Prez so he can sign it into law. Looks like this is something that may be passed, if it does, in 2007. Long after the Distants are yanked from those 800K subs. Good luck to those affected.
What still amazes me in all this, from the beginning, is who are all these people who have the DNS illegally? All I know is when I tried to get the NY stations, I was told by E*, I needed a waiver. I got one for CBS and when that process was properly executed under the FCC regulations, I got CBS. Who here called up and got DNS illegally just for the asking? I suppose, since I was required by E* to comply with the law, I fail to see where they were so bold to break the law so flagrantly as the court claimed.
And, to all those who want to see E* customers suffer, Kiss MY ASS! I hope the next time you get stopped for speeding or any traffic violation, they fine you $10,000 and take your driver's license away permanently. I don't even know you and that's what I wish on you! I hope your family suffers because of your flagrant violation of the speeding laws you were well aware of! How's that for getting ugly?
And, to all those who want to see E* customers suffer, Kiss MY ASS! I hope the next time you get stopped for speeding or any traffic violation, they fine you $10,000 and take your driver's license away permanently. I don't even know you and that's what I wish on you! I hope your family suffers because of your flagrant violation of the speeding laws you were well aware of! How's that for getting ugly?
i second that, there is no need for a law to be written for e* to do this on its own. Ok so you got busted with DNS. What can we do (w/o crying to congress/senate) to resolve this. How about those who where recieving locals and dns, cut off dns. Those that we dont have locals up yet and ant get a reliable ota signal, provide them an east or west cost feed while we work on uplinking their local or sv (per fcc) locals.
Perhaps i just think with commond sence and logic.
You dont see me running to congress when something happens to me financially. Why should these corporations do it. Oh and BTW im a Republican!
It cannot be done without a NEW law. As of DEC 1 E* doesn't have a license to provide an east or west coast feed or SV.
The House is in adjournment until Dec. 5. and the Senate is moving for an adjournment until Dec. 4th - but why should we let the facts get in the way of a good rumor
I'm sure at least half of the current DNS subscribers would be more than willing to make a one-time $50 investment to keep their stations.
Hopefully I'm not getting too carried away here, but to those willing to listen, there are a few overlooked points I'd like to interject:
DiSH's so-called "violation" of the "law" has been under sheer demand by their customers. The comment by Rep. Cannon about E* using their customers as "human shields" is nothing short of hatred toward millions of Americans. While I'm glad to not personally be involved in legal action over this issue, I've always been appreciative of E*'s continual efforts, in a class-action sort of way, to maintain their customers' access and choices of broadcast stations. Not to start any kind of E vs. D debate, but from a broadcast channel perspective, D* has always let consumers down with their lack of Superstations, neglect to offer any immediate WB replacement upon WGN dropping it, and their generally indifferent attitude on DNS and probably LIL as well. Heck, D* even stalled on providing a western feed of FOX after dropping PT24. On the other hand, I must admit, E*'s feed of KTTV did have rather severe problems up until the time D* added the station.
That reminds me of a question I thought of in this whole thing, is FOX even officially considered a network by the FCC? It seems to me that for some reason it is, while WB/UPN and their sucessors never were. I know that networks other than the "big 3" are prohibited from airing more than a certain number of hours per week in primetime. Perhaps FOX does qualify as a network because they program 7 nights a week or something else to that effect. Someone else will probably shed more light on this if anyone deems it relevant.
Anyway, considering their offerings in broadcast stations, I've never considered D* a viable option and was reluctant to even go with DiSH until I was confident that I'd be able to get all six of the major commercial stations from NYC. Without recieving all stations from a single DMA, you lose the ability to view many syndicated programs. Convieniently, Dish Nets East & West were launched just as I was moving to a location where cable was unavailable and OTA offerings were sparse, leaving DiSH and C-Band as the only real choices. I went with DiSH, and even so, I still missed out on syndicated shows that didn't clear DMA #1 and aired on either KCAL or KCOP in L.A. Sure, it wasn't a great loss, but it irked me once in a while.
Of course distants aren't a "necessity", except in the sense of viewing their programing, where viewers either can't or won't watch locals. As far as national programming goes, within the realm of satellite TV, distants neither are so much a "convienence" as they are a practicality. Think about it. For those who indeed receive no over the air reception, without their East and West feeds, twice as many receivers would need to be purchased in order to record the same number of simultainious primetime shows, be it two, four, or six. Granted, if you reside in a major city and can receive the networks by antenna or cable without the need for receivers, this task would require twice the number of VCRs/DVRs, but for rural residents, this savings is offset by the need to purchase a satellite system and subscription, and face it, when most of us got into this, a maximum of two receivers was the norm.
It's better than nothing, and I'm grateful something appears to be being done, but this new bill is far from perfect. For some reason it reminds me of when the tobacco companies were required to pay into a settlement to fund anti-smoking campaigns, then complained when the campaign ended up not so much discouraging smoking as criminalizing the tobacco companies, to no particular benefit. OK, so in that case, maybe they had it coming. What I'm trying to say is that any attempt to say that E* is a criminal which its customers are the victims of is a gross misrepresentation. While there are some newbies in white areas who may be oblivious to the whole situation, I believe there are a large number of "unqualified" people who would be glad to get around the law. Considering the nature of the situation, I think it's an amazingly high level of compliance with the law if the figures I heard are correct regarding ~75-80% being fully within the law, or at least "appearing" to be. I think it's safe to assume that many more people would subscribe to distants if they were permitted to. I can tell you that without distants and superstations, I have little interest in satellite TV. Obviously, it's understandable that if it's known that 20% are unlawful, trouble would arise in the courts, but any unbiased consumer has to admire DiSH for making every effort to give the public what they want. Clearly, this law does nothing more than protect an isolated group of special intrests while depriving society of a valuable asset.
Now, this idea of compensating the local affiliates is ridiculous in a way, but makes more sense in solving the dilemma than has anything else so far. It's like saying that if I choose to shop at one supermarket, I should have to pay a penalty to the one across the street for not shopping there. OK, so someone will come along and point out that these affiliates are to have the exclusive rights to broadcast their given programming in their DMAs. Well, fine, but basically, it's the same logic.
While I'm at it, let me reiterate to some of the posters on other threads, a point that Tony made recently: The SHVA and its successors are not the "evil" laws resricting our channels, but rather the permissive law under which we are allowed to have DNS at all.
However, in order for the SHVA to be needed in the first place, it must be that it's effect is to circumvent presumably actually-evil (well, restrictive to the public at large) laws. I've not fully studied it lately, but I believe it falls under copyright restrictions.
By the way, it's nice to see that a lot of you guys are still around whom I remember from when I lurked the E* Usenet group years ago. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.
OK, so, the locals are to be compensated if their market is not carried, and distants are offered in their place. This ensures the stations get the most they're entitled to, but at the same time, discourages DiSH from adding the market, which, to a point, harms rural customers who *want* the locals, though of course helps those that prefer distants.
Let me add that I find it quite deluded that anyone should be able to stop a television provider--which is operating, in terms of their means of transmission and such, according to all regulations--from merely taking a signal which is broadcast freely over the airwaves, and retransmitting it to viewers who happen to be outside of that signal's range. To me, anything broadcast unencrypted over the air should be considered public domain.
Even more warped is the very concept of retransmission consent, especially within a station's DMA. Let me get this right. A station can charge money to, for instance, a cable company, for carrying their signal, and providing the signal to viewers who could not otherwise receive it, while at the same time, the station is setting their advertising rates based on inclusion of these viewers, whether or not they can receive the station, and even including cases in which the station may be willfully preventing their reception?!? If I understand correctly, retransmission consent is simply the station squeezing money out of the cable or sat providers because they can. This, to me, amounts to blackmail, extortion, and dishonest sales tactics to advertisers. I realize that all of these companies, be it the stations or anyone else involved, are, much of the time, just doing what they need to in order to stay in business, but if this is how it is, they really ought to change their business model.
To make what may be my one actual useful point in all of this, assuming that "fairness" constitutes providing the local affiliate with impilied viewership (as in, no access to alternatives, whether you end up watching the local or not) or better yet, the effect of actual viewership, the only definatively fair remedy in this situation would be for the stations to provide E* with copies of each commercial spot they'll be running each day. E* can then download the content to receivers, or include support for non-DVR models by placing them in a repetitive stream like the program guide data. In my estimation, the average station doesn't run more than about 5-10 minutes of unique local paid commercials each day. Viewers would then be required to play through the contained local ad spots before being able to tune into a protected program on a distant station. I guess this still doesn't provide sufficient exposure for all of the infomercials that stations are airing, but DiSH could create channels that air these continuously, and stick them in between the distants in the lineup.
What else am I leaving out? Is it against the law to watch syndicated programming if no station has purchased the rights to it in my DMA? If so, I guess DiSH would have to make such shows PPV. There you go. I think I've covered everything. Now, lawmakers and E* just need to come to a concensus that will allow us to subscribe to as many distants as we want, and hopefully put some of the more popular stations around the country on CONUS beams. Wow, all of this just so I can watch the news from another town.
In conclusion, congratulations to everyone here who made a difference, to Washington for at least doing more than I'd be inclined to expect, and to Charlie for never giving up the fight. Now let's make sure the bill passes. Local and DNS for everyone!
It's only TV, folks. Still, distants are a nice thing to have. I thank God for them, and wish I had more. Peace.
New Site Please
Can I set up savemybusiness.com, so that Dish can stop the piracy, and I do not have to go out of business? Perhaps the senate should mandate on that as well.
Can I set up savemybusiness.com, so that Dish can stop the piracy, and I do not have to go out of business? Perhaps the senate should mandate on that as well.
I for one hope that as many people as possible which would include white area people , whether local networks are available by satellite or not,but not available over the air, will have the choice to subscribe to all the distant network cities, not just two cities.
My point is, where networks are not available over the airwaves for any number of reasons, the customer should have the freedom to purchase the networks from wherever he chooses and not be compelled to purchase local networks via satellite. If local networks cannot get a signal into your backyard over the air waves, why should they have the right by law to say I can't receive distant networks from someone other than themselves?
Sorry if I upset some of you with my wishes for freedom of choice, lash me in the town square if you so desire.
People from other countries must be laughing at us with our broadcasting laws.
My point is, where networks are not available over the airwaves for any number of reasons, the customer should have the freedom to purchase the networks from wherever he chooses and not be compelled to purchase local networks via satellite. If local networks cannot get a signal into your backyard over the air waves, why should they have the right by law to say I can't receive distant networks from someone other than themselves?
Sorry if I upset some of you with my wishes for freedom of choice, lash me in the town square if you so desire.
People from other countries must be laughing at us with our broadcasting laws.
I'm sure at least half of the current DNS subscribers would be more than willing to make a one-time $50 investment to keep their stations.
Hopefully I'm not getting too carried away here, but to those willing to listen, there are a few overlooked points I'd like to interject:
DiSH's so-called "violation" of the "law" has been under sheer demand by their customers. The comment by Rep. Cannon about E* using their customers as "human shields" is nothing short of hatred toward millions of Americans. While I'm glad to not personally be involved in legal action over this issue, I've always been appreciative of E*'s continual efforts, in a class-action sort of way, to maintain their customers' access and choices of broadcast stations. Not to start any kind of E vs. D debate, but from a broadcast channel perspective, D* has always let consumers down with their lack of Superstations, neglect to offer any immediate WB replacement upon WGN dropping it, and their generally indifferent attitude on DNS and probably LIL as well. Heck, D* even stalled on providing a western feed of FOX after dropping PT24. On the other hand, I must admit, E*'s feed of KTTV did have rather severe problems up until the time D* added the station.
That reminds me of a question I thought of in this whole thing, is FOX even officially considered a network by the FCC? It seems to me that for some reason it is, while WB/UPN and their sucessors never were. I know that networks other than the "big 3" are prohibited from airing more than a certain number of hours per week in primetime. Perhaps FOX does qualify as a network because they program 7 nights a week or something else to that effect. Someone else will probably shed more light on this if anyone deems it relevant.
Anyway, considering their offerings in broadcast stations, I've never considered D* a viable option and was reluctant to even go with DiSH until I was confident that I'd be able to get all six of the major commercial stations from NYC. Without recieving all stations from a single DMA, you lose the ability to view many syndicated programs. Convieniently, Dish Nets East & West were launched just as I was moving to a location where cable was unavailable and OTA offerings were sparse, leaving DiSH and C-Band as the only real choices. I went with DiSH, and even so, I still missed out on syndicated shows that didn't clear DMA #1 and aired on either KCAL or KCOP in L.A. Sure, it wasn't a great loss, but it irked me once in a while.
Of course distants aren't a "necessity", except in the sense of viewing their programing, where viewers either can't or won't watch locals. As far as national programming goes, within the realm of satellite TV, distants neither are so much a "convienence" as they are a practicality. Think about it. For those who indeed receive no over the air reception, without their East and West feeds, twice as many receivers would need to be purchased in order to record the same number of simultainious primetime shows, be it two, four, or six. Granted, if you reside in a major city and can receive the networks by antenna or cable without the need for receivers, this task would require twice the number of VCRs/DVRs, but for rural residents, this savings is offset by the need to purchase a satellite system and subscription, and face it, when most of us got into this, a maximum of two receivers was the norm.
It's better than nothing, and I'm grateful something appears to be being done, but this new bill is far from perfect. For some reason it reminds me of when the tobacco companies were required to pay into a settlement to fund anti-smoking campaigns, then complained when the campaign ended up not so much discouraging smoking as criminalizing the tobacco companies, to no particular benefit. OK, so in that case, maybe they had it coming. What I'm trying to say is that any attempt to say that E* is a criminal which its customers are the victims of is a gross misrepresentation. While there are some newbies in white areas who may be oblivious to the whole situation, I believe there are a large number of "unqualified" people who would be glad to get around the law. Considering the nature of the situation, I think it's an amazingly high level of compliance with the law if the figures I heard are correct regarding ~75-80% being fully within the law, or at least "appearing" to be. I think it's safe to assume that many more people would subscribe to distants if they were permitted to. I can tell you that without distants and superstations, I have little interest in satellite TV. Obviously, it's understandable that if it's known that 20% are unlawful, trouble would arise in the courts, but any unbiased consumer has to admire DiSH for making every effort to give the public what they want. Clearly, this law does nothing more than protect an isolated group of special intrests while depriving society of a valuable asset.
Now, this idea of compensating the local affiliates is ridiculous in a way, but makes more sense in solving the dilemma than has anything else so far. It's like saying that if I choose to shop at one supermarket, I should have to pay a penalty to the one across the street for not shopping there. OK, so someone will come along and point out that these affiliates are to have the exclusive rights to broadcast their given programming in their DMAs. Well, fine, but basically, it's the same logic.
While I'm at it, let me reiterate to some of the posters on other threads, a point that Tony made recently: The SHVA and its successors are not the "evil" laws resricting our channels, but rather the permissive law under which we are allowed to have DNS at all.
However, in order for the SHVA to be needed in the first place, it must be that it's effect is to circumvent presumably actually-evil (well, restrictive to the public at large) laws. I've not fully studied it lately, but I believe it falls under copyright restrictions.
By the way, it's nice to see that a lot of you guys are still around whom I remember from when I lurked the E* Usenet group years ago. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.
Good for you, I seem to remember that Echostar has been trying settle this for years, and finally settled with all but 8 Fox O&O stations. Rupert was the holdout, I hope this comes back to bite him in the butt. Even though I'm not affected by this I will be calling to voice my support for this bill.
Even though Echostar didn't for the most part play by the rules, that is no reason to hold all the legal DNS receivers liable.
20 million is nothing. Charlie make 4.5 million a month on the 900,000 subs that he will lose at $5. per month.
The Senate is just one chamber; the exact same legislation has to be passed by the House, and signed by the president.
I am thinking that the "save" of DNS might not happen in time. Its hard to imagine that. But I would LOVE IT if I were wrong.
I am thinking that the "save" of DNS might not happen in time. Its hard to imagine that. But I would LOVE IT if I were wrong.
Its NOT going to happen in time and everyone will lose their distants by December 1st. However once both houses are in session it is expected that the bill would pass both chambers.
From where I sit this gives Dish a fresh start with a blank page, everyone will need to be requalified again, but alas those who should have distant networks legally will have them again.
Again thank you to each and every SatelliteGuys member who called to voice their concern.
From where I sit this gives Dish a fresh start with a blank page, everyone will need to be requalified again, but alas those who should have distant networks legally will have them again.
Again thank you to each and every SatelliteGuys member who called to voice their concern.
That will be a very good thing if it comes to pass. It will be interesting to see if GWB will sign it into law, given the cozy relationship the administration has with Murdoch/Fox.
Time will tell, but yes... people made their voices heard, and at least someone was listening.
I am not surprised that Pat Leahy (a fellow St. Michael's College alum, I might add) took the lead in the Senate. He was in the front against the internet censorship bill back in 1996 too.
It will be very interesting to see who wins this battle, the Satguys with their phone calls or the NAB with their $'s.
