WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!

[Tower Guy]

1st time poster.

A couple of years ago, Dish Network was allowed to offer local affiliated network broadcasts in my DMA. This required placement and wiring of a second dish into my home to receive 148 for my DMA locals. Remember, I was content receiving major network broadcasts at all, local or distant.

Not one, but two separate Dish Network field crews were dispatched to my residence to hook up the second necessary dish to receive 148 signal transmission. Both times. they were unable to find a line of site anywhere on my property to receive Grade B or better 148 signals. Both times, I requalified yet again to legitimately receive DNS. I retained my legitimate waiver subscription for NY DNS.

The inability to receive a satellite signal is not a valid reason for an over the air waiver. You may have received one because your local affiliate felt sorry for you, but they were not required to issue the waiver.

If things worked in reverse, the lack of a satellite signal should have qualified you for a waiver from E* to receive the local stations over the air.

I have heard that DirecTV would love to have you as a customer and will rebate your stranded E* equipment costs. You might even be able to get local stations for the first time.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

I am not advocating theft of copyright material...I am just advocating access to it paying any and all fees, royalties, etc...Let that be my choice and most importantly my right as a consumer...

You still fail to get it through your head that the station in Sacramento does not have the right to sell you CBS material in Cleveland.

You cannot buy it from them. They don't own it. And likewise, they cannot grant Dish or Directv the right to sell it to you either - as they don't own it.

Why do you continue to run about the basic concept of ownership?

You do not have any god given right to it.

Just as in the OJ Simpson Book, if Fox wants to shelf it - they own it - its their right. You have no right to see it just because you want to see it.

So yes, it is theft - as the person does not have a legal right to sell it to you - no more than the DVD counterfeiter on the street corner.

 

[ti_yn]

Guess it's back to Sporadic E-Skip for white area folk...

You still fail to get it through your head that the station in Sacramento does not have the right to sell you CBS material in Cleveland.

You cannot buy it from them. They don't own it. And likewise, they cannot grant Dish or Directv the right to sell it to you either - as they don't own it.

Umm, our local stations are authorized to distribute it to us. If we, or E* on our behalf, are willing to provide such stations with appropriate financial compensation, it should grant us the right to access the same material elsewhere.

Just come on and roll out a system to bug the distants with the local advertisers' logos. Besides, I'm noticing that, at least in top markets, the local advertisers are mostly the same in each, especially in primetime.

As for the allegations against Mr. Dimitrouleas, although I wasn't feeling so kindly toward him thoughout the day, it seems that he did little more than that required of him by his job and the law. Let's just hope E* doesn't do the same...

Has there even been any proof that they broke the law any more than, say, D*? I've always liked to think E* was doing whatever it took to get us our stations, and I know they've made an admirable effort. But what was the proof that they didn't obey the law? I know that in 2003, I lost one of the networks I'd had for several years, so a requalification must have taken place. I made a brief attempt at getting a waiver, and when that didn't work, I just sent in my RV registration. And here we are today.
__________________
Distant NTSC Forever!

 

[waltinvt]

Longley-Rice is not perfect. The software itself indicates that some answers are nebulous when the terrian is unusual. The solution is on-site testing, which will be a part of the rules. However, Congress is fed up with the games that have been played and would much rather see HD Local-into-Local on a larger scale.

"Congress is fed up with the games"? Then maybe they need to have "oversight" take a look at how SHVERA was written, what the FCC has and has not done to implement it and who has benefited the most.

For example, why hasn't there been a digital specific prediction model created? Because the FCC says we don't need one. They did however make some recommendations to congress regarding digital signals but to my knowledge, congress hhasn't addressed them.

Why was the signal testing appeal process removed? In other words, even though the FCC has stated that if your sat carrier offers analog LiLs, it has no bearing on your qualification for digital distants, yet those same analog LiLs disqualify your right to a signal test if you want to appeal the LR determination.

If SHVA, SHVIA, SHVERA were designed to enable those with no OTA options for networks locally to receive network signals from an alternate source, then why do those that can not get digital signals locally, still have to depend on waivers (the whim of the station) instead of the reality of whether they can actually receive the local signal or not?

 

[ltahoe7195]

NFL on Dish

The main reason that I asked for a waiver and received DNS channels was in order to receive NFL games out of NY, LA and Fox (Chi). I did get the waiver for CBS right away, mainly because KPIX in SF does not offer High Def, whereas, KCBS in LA does. Fox first denied my waiver, then OK'd it (not sure why). So now I get Fox - CHI, LA and CBS - NY, LA. Occasionally I'd watch D. Letterman out of WCBS in NY at 8:30 pm PST, but that's not a biggie since I have a DVR and can watch it one day later if I lose the DNS channels, but the football I'll miss. To be honest with you, since there is so much garbage on TV now, sports are one of the few escapes left. I'll have to look hard at DirecTV next Aug when they usually roll out there NFL Sunday Ticket package, usually if new subscribers pay for it at $219.00 for the year, they get something like 3 or 4 mths free programming for all there other channels (incl. HBO, Showtime, Max, etc.). It really depends how Dish settles the DNS issue. I figure by next August this issue will be settled one way or another, it looks to me like Dish subscribers will be either able to get DNS or LIL, but not both, like some people do now. I wish the NFL would've have come to some kind of an agreement with DISH as well as DirecTV, you'd think the NFL would want as many people as possible subscribing to the NFL Sunday Ticket Package. But DirecTV locked it up thru at least 2009 I believe.

 

[Tower Guy]

Why was the signal testing appeal process removed? In other words, even though the FCC has stated that if your sat carrier offers analog LiLs, it has no bearing on your qualification for digital distants, yet those same analog LiLs disqualify your right to a signal test if you want to appeal the LR determination.

If SHVA, SHVIA, SHVERA were designed to enable those with no OTA options for networks locally to receive network signals from an alternate source, then why do those that can not get digital signals locally, still have to depend on waivers (the whim of the station) instead of the reality of whether they can actually receive the local signal or not?

The ability to deliver you a HD program from Burlington via satellite is in the hands of Echostar, not your local stations. The satellite companies should be rolling out LiL in HD as quickly as possible. Any availability of waivers would actually decrease their incentive to deliver you the proper HD signal.

 

[Tower Guy]

"Congress is fed up with the games"? Then maybe they need to have "oversight" take a look at how SHVERA was written, what the FCC has and has not done to implement it and who has benefited the most.

Congress wrote the law, Echostar broke the law. What makes you think the law was written and implemented improperly?

I contend that the enforcement of the law through the courts took way too long. I don't see that the FCC had anything to do with that.

 

[waltinvt]

The ability to deliver you a HD program from Burlington via satellite is in the hands of Echostar, not your local stations.

Not if the affiliates are stonewalling. Personally I'd think those channels would jump at the chance to increase their viewership by a few million instead of playing hard to get.

The satellite companies should be rolling out LiL in HD as quickly as possible. Any availability of waivers would actually decrease their incentive to deliver you the proper HD signal.

I completely agree but again I point to the affiliate making it difficult for Dish to get their digital feeds.

Some of these rinky-dink affiliates seem to be of the mindset that as long as they can get a half-ass, minimal grade-B analog signal to their customers (whether via OTA, cable or satellite LiLs), then they're covered and nobody should have the right to allow that viewer a digital signal.

 

[waltinvt]

Congress wrote the law, Echostar broke the law. What makes you think the law was written and implemented improperly?

I contend that the enforcement of the law through the courts took way too long. I don't see that the FCC had anything to do with that.

I think we have a miss-understanding. I'm not sticking up for Dish. In fact some here will tell you how sick they get of hearing me drag Dish through the mud.

I'm not disputing that Dish broke the law, nor am I saying the courts implemented it improperly. Dish makes themselves look like idiots much of the time and this court case was no exception. Their legal team must be paid less than their CSRs.

What I am trying to say is that the SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA along with the subsequent FCC rules and clarifications have left a lot to be desired. Like everything legal, the devil's in the details and what looked like it might help satellite customers has in reality been a bust for some - especially when it comes to digital.

For example, SHVERA gave the FCC until Dec '05 to complete a study to see what was needed for predicting digital signals. The FCC basically sat on their butts and just before the deadline they released a "report to congress" saying the existing LR model currently being used for analog was plenty adequate.

That may be credible in areas where the terrain is flat and towers are within 60 miles but much of the country isn't like that and any idiot knows the LR method favors the stations - not the consumer. That's why there was a "safeguard clause" for allowing signal testing where the station had to pay for the test if the person really couldn't get the signal. Why was that testing option removed?

A similar digital signal testing option was supposed to be available for the top 100 DMAs last April (with the rest to follow next July). Where is it? I know it sure isn't available up here in Vt. Could it be that in areas where viewers might actually benefit from it, the stations were given exemptions.

It's almost 2007 - past the original deadline date for the analog shutoff and there are still millions of people in this country that are being deprived of being able to see prime time network programming in high defination.

Now I realize this whole court matter goes back 9 years and has nothing to do with SHVERA. However, in reality, if the powers that be had done their job in 2004, I don't think the distants issue would be as relevant as it is today.

The whole mess would go away if congress made it mandatory for all tv signal carriers (cable, satellite, Fios or whatever), station owners and broadcasters to share the expense and resources necessary to provide and maintain a common set of local digital feeds of the major networks.

If the affiliate can't or won't get a decent digital feed to the carrier, the carrier is then allowed (obligated) to provide a digital feed of a distant network station (that are also commonly shared by all carriers).

This guarantees the nets in HD to everyone that wants them; cuts down on cost and bandwidth by sharing expense of just one set of signals; frees up carriers to compete in all other non-network programming, PPV, VOD, sports specialty feeds, etc. and most of all, speeds up the digital transition.

 

[Chris Walker]

The main reason that I asked for a waiver and received DNS channels was in order to receive NFL games out of NY, LA and Fox (Chi). I did get the waiver for CBS right away, mainly because KPIX in SF does not offer High Def, whereas, KCBS in LA does. Fox first denied my waiver, then OK'd it (not sure why). So now I get Fox - CHI, LA and CBS - NY, LA. Occasionally I'd watch D. Letterman out of WCBS in NY at 8:30 pm PST, but that's not a biggie since I have a DVR and can watch it one day later if I lose the DNS channels, but the football I'll miss. To be honest with you, since there is so much garbage on TV now, sports are one of the few escapes left. I'll have to look hard at DirecTV next Aug when they usually roll out there NFL Sunday Ticket package, usually if new subscribers pay for it at $219.00 for the year, they get something like 3 or 4 mths free programming for all there other channels (incl. HBO, Showtime, Max, etc.). It really depends how Dish settles the DNS issue. I figure by next August this issue will be settled one way or another, it looks to me like Dish subscribers will be either able to get DNS or LIL, but not both, like some people do now. I wish the NFL would've have come to some kind of an agreement with DISH as well as DirecTV, you'd think the NFL would want as many people as possible subscribing to the NFL Sunday Ticket Package. But DirecTV locked it up thru at least 2009 I believe.

The football is a big draw of the distants for me as well. I am watching less and less network programming, but I still watch several things.

 

[ac3750]

You still fail to get it through your head that the station in Sacramento does not have the right to sell you CBS material in Cleveland.

I would think that CBS, or any national network for this matter, wouldn't object to where a consumer picked up their content. ratings is what it's all about.

You cannot buy it from them. They don't own it. And likewise, they cannot grant Dish or Directv the right to sell it to you either - as they don't own it.

Ok...if they don't own it, then there is no copyright issue with the local station then...

Why do you continue to run about the basic concept of ownership?

To me, it is simple...or basic as you put it...either a station owns the content or they don't...if they do, then the station has the right to sell or not sell as they see fit. If they don't, then it's not up to the station to decide who views the content.

You do not have any god given right to it.

God has nothing to do with this topic...I am saying that our founding fathers and the Bill of Rights grant us the right to life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

Just as in the OJ Simpson Book, if Fox wants to shelf it - they own it - its their right. You have no right to see it just because you want to see it.

I agree that the content owner has this choice/right. Just as anyone has the same right to publish and/or distribute. But once the owner decides to make it available, we all have the right to receive regardless of where we live.

So yes, it is theft - as the person does not have a legal right to sell it to you - no more than the DVD counterfeiter on the street corner.

I, again, am stating that I do not advocate obtaining illegal content weather it be receiving premium content without paying for it or an illegal made copy of a DVD. I am advocating that it is my choice and my right to buy that DVD from any place I so choose weather it was from my local DVD store, or a store located across the country. It's called the free market.

 

[lou_do]

The bottom line is, Charlie got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, was given time to correct it and didn't. Now as a result, he is getting punished, at the expense of his DNS customers.

 

[ThomasRz]

I would think that CBS, or any national network for this matter, wouldn't object to where a consumer picked up their content. ratings is what it's all about.

Surely you understand that there is more to a network feed than the primetime lineup? There is local content. Local content varies according to, well, locality. If every network feed were identical there would probably be no issue. Except for those who claim that PQ out of NY is so superior to East Elbow, IA that they must have DNS.

Ok...if they don't own it, then there is no copyright issue with the local station then...

This statement makes no sense. Could you rephrase? The important notion is that the DBS (E*, D*, X*...) is essentially the bagman for the programming (things like Charlie Lies, er Chat excepted). Does UPS own your Hickory Farms Sausage and Cheese package until they deliver it to you?

To me, it is simple...or basic as you put it...either a station owns the content or they don't...if they do, then the station has the right to sell or not sell as they see fit. If they don't, then it's not up to the station to decide who views the content.

Correct as far as it goes. If the station owns the content (i.e. is the copyright holder) then they must license it for use. However there are multiple copyright holders that are involved. That is why, please pay attention, the statutory license exists. Congress has removed some of the rights of the owners in order to make network signals easily available to the unserved. Without this license, the copyright holder (be it a network, local affiliate, production company, syndicator) could prevent any and all distribution of the material - by any means. Congress has conditioned this license. It is up to those who utilize the license (e.g. E*) to meet those conditions or face the consequences.

God has nothing to do with this topic...I am saying that our founding fathers and the Bill of Rights grant us the right to life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

God has everthing to do with everything but to your point, your (sort of) quotation is from the Declaration of Independence not the Bill of Rights nor any part of the Constitution. But even if it were, your (implied) contention that it would grant you unfettered access to DNS is preposterous and silly.

I agree that the content owner has this choice/right. Just as anyone has the same right to publish and/or distribute. But once the owner decides to make it available, we all have the right to receive regardless of where we live.

Not at all. Part of the rights that the content owner has is to determine when, where and to whom to license its use. In this case, as mentioned above, Congress has removed part of that power and substituted its own judgment with regard to DNS.

I, again, am stating that I do not advocate obtaining illegal content weather it be receiving premium content without paying for it or an illegal made copy of a DVD. I am advocating that it is my choice and my right to buy that DVD from any place I so choose weather it was from my local DVD store, or a store located across the country. It's called the free market.

And if the distributor decides not to provide the DVD to your local store, do you have the right to hijack a truck carrying it (or have a store employee do it for you) even if you leave behind cash in the amount of the retail price (+tax)?

Capitalism works.

 

[ac3750]

And if the distributor decides not to provide the DVD to your local store, do you have the right to hijack a truck carrying it (or have a store employee do it for you) even if you leave behind cash in the amount of the retail price (+tax)?

Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

 

[ThomasRz]

Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

Ok, let me broaden the proposition. If the owner of X doesn't want to sell it to you because you live in State A. Tough. Just because the owner sells it to people in State B (or is forced by the government to sell X to a defined group in State C) gives you no right to purchase it even if X is delivered by the same trucking company to lawful purchasers. Geographical restrictions are often imposed. Let's say you live in Arizona. Can you buy a handgun from a dealer in Texas? No. Even if you pay Ernie's Gunrunning and Transport Company a premium to deliver it. The product in either case has NOT been made available to anyone with the cash to pay for it. Either is available to individuals who are LEGALLY QUALIFIED to purchase the product. I know you wish it would be otherwise but it isn't. If you want to make DNS (or handguns or whatever) freely available for purchase - get the laws changed. However, I suggest that you come up with a stronger argument than it doesn't matter if "X" is a DVD, DNS, or a S&W 629. There are public policy reasons for discriminating among products. It is not done just to make you unhappy. Even when the private sector has freedom to do things it doesn't because it doesn't make business sense. How many times have you seen a McDonalds across the street from another McDonalds? I would guess never. Now how many times have you seen a Burger King next to a McDonalds? Fairly often. There are sound business reasons for all of these actions. If you don't understand them, I suggest you take some classes at the local community college. I am not being flip. It will help you understand the concepts.

 

[boy921]

This may have been discussed already but I can't find it. Okay, I don't know how it works but does the network give all of its programming to the affiliate station for free? If so then I can see the programming being made available to everyone from any location via DNS. If the affiliate station has to pay to show the network programming, then I can see where they would have a problem letting anyone in their market get it from elsewhere. Then too maybe the network wants viewers to see their programming from the respective markets. How does this actually work?

Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

 

[cariera]

Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

Actually I believe that this is "less silly" than you think as some dvds and dvd players are regionally encoded (or have been in the past). This seems to be done to limit distribution and ensure the owner of the product gets paid.

 

[TNGTony]

Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

Real world situation.
Coors Beer could not be legally sold nor commercially transported except in certain regions of the country before national distribution some time in the 80s. This was due to the MANUFACTURER'S Distribution deal. It had nothing to do with any other laws. Remember the movie "Smokey and the Bandit?". Remember the story line? No actual theft was involved in the movie. But the act of trucking Coors to Georgia was bootleging.

Something that survises to this day: If you go to a Coca Cola bottler they will NOT sell you product unless you are selling it in "their" territory. Period. You have to go to the bottler in that region. No exceptions. If you get caught going to the wrong distributer they will CUT YOU OFF! This happened to WAL*MART (Sam's Club)

[edit]... another point. Nothing...absolutely nothing is illegal or stopping you from driving the 500 miles and watching the distant station directly. What is illegal is some one else taking the distant station and selling it to you against the wishes of the station in question. The question is not about primary viewership. The question is about redistribution!

See ya
Tony

 

[ThomasRz]

This may have been discussed already but I can't find it. Okay, I don't know how it works but does the network give all of its programming to the affiliate station for free? If so then I can see the programming being made available to everyone from any location via DNS. If the affiliate station has to pay to show the network programming, then I can see where they would have a problem letting anyone in their market get it from elsewhere. Then too maybe the network wants viewers to see their programming from the respective markets. How does this actually work?

I'm sure someone will provide the grisly details about the network affiliate system. My point is that it really doesn't matter. The legal owners of the product have the right to control it. In the case of OTA, they have said that anybody with the technical capability (by sticking an piece of metal in the air) may receive their programming for personal use. In the case of cable, for the most part, they have lost some rights on redistribution - the theory (very simply stated) is that cable is essentially performing the same function as OTA, often providing a better quality signal. However you don't see the cable company in West Undershirt, NE rebroadcasting WABC out of New York or WMAL from Baltimore. Funny how cable customers don't seem to howl about this like DBS types do. Whatever the financial relationship you, as a customer, can opt to receive your local network stations OTA or by cable, depending upon your preferences and availability. Likewise you can, in most cases, receive them via DBS. What you cannot do is receive out of market network signals (by DBS or cable) unless you are legally qualified to do so. I suppose since DBS doesn't require a physical connection it was naturally open to abuse.