FCC Lays Out HD Requirements [Archive]

Herdfan

03-19-08, 01:55 PM

So...

Question #1:
What if the affiliate doesn't give DirecTV the right to carry the channel... or wants to charge for the right? Does DirecTV (or Dish) have the right then not to carry it.

Question #2:
Only channels that carry HD content? are must carry?

Question #3:
What about Sub-Channels?

It seems like it is a little vague.

Ultimately... I think this will slow down HD LiL for both carriers... and ultimately lead to some markets not having any of the HD LiL available.

Looks like an HD must-carry to me. So if the channel wants to be carried, the DBS provider has to carry it. If the channel wants money (LIN), then a retransmission consent agreement must be reached. I don't think the FCC would force carriage and allow the channel to request whatever payment it wants.

Looks like only HD channels would be covered as the SD feeds are already covered.

Sub-channels in HD? Ouch!

If it does slow HD LIL in some markets, some of the smaller markets may benefit. In my market, we only have the big 4/little 2 and I don't think the CW is available in HD. Actually, I think our PBS station runs 6 subs, so no room for HD there anyway. So smaller markets without all the "extra" independents might get served faster.

ccr1958

03-19-08, 01:55 PM

when they say "strain bandwidth" i wonder & hope that doen't
mean terrible PQ....i can see this ruling getting hung up somewhere
in congress for a while

Sixto

03-19-08, 02:09 PM

when they say "strain bandwidth" i wonder & hope that doen't
mean terrible PQ....i can see this ruling getting hung up somewhere
in congress for a whileyea, lets delay this ruling for a decade or so ...

Just stupid. If DirecTV carries the channel (in SD), why must they be forced to carry a particular flavor of the channel (HD). It's available to the entire market (in SD), why force HD.

lwilli201

03-19-08, 02:10 PM

It would be nice if the author of that story would have given a source. This kind of news story is usually incomplete.

CopyCat

03-19-08, 02:17 PM

The people passing these laws and others about satellite TV are living in the dark ages.

I get my local digitals OTA and would be very happy to have NY & LA national feeds in HD, but we are not allowed because somebody convinced congress years ago it was bad for local business (read that as local TV stations and their revenue stream)

At the time congress had no idea what they were voting for and I doubt they do today when it comes to anything technical beyond changing channels on their remote. I'll bet the VCRs are still flashing 88:88 in their homes.

Why don't we have the same restrictions on satellite radio ?

HoTat2

03-19-08, 02:19 PM

Wow… I don’t see how D* could do this without a lot more satellite bandwidth to implement this HD or DTV must carry rule nationwide. In the Los Angeles DMA alone, I presently count about 14-15 other stations broadcasting in DTV that would need to be carried on D*s system in addition to the 7 local stations already beamed as HD LiLs. Also if this ruling is allowed to stand I guess D*'s optional AM21 strategy is sort of irrelevant now.

Stuart Sweet

03-19-08, 02:28 PM

My suspicion is that these rules are fairly vague and there will be some sort of loophole. As the link is to the article about the FCC ruling and not the actual ruling, and as I'm nothing like an attorney, I have no idea how vague.

I suspect that there will be a clarifying ruling and my suspicion is, that it will be something like: a satellite or cable operator cannot intentionally keep a primary channel from coverage unless no reasonable accommodation can be made on price of carriage. That seems fair and reasonable, and mediating what is meant by "reasonable accommodation" is the sort of thing the FCC was created to do.

Herdfan

03-19-08, 02:30 PM

At the time congress had no idea what they were voting for and I doubt they do today when it comes to anything technical beyond changing channels on their remote. I'll bet the VCRs are still flashing 88:88 in their homes.

Did anyone hear any of the sound bites from the some of the baseball steroid hearings? There was only one person, from IN I think, that had a clue about what he was asking. The rest of them were total buffoons that had no idea what the issue was.

TBoneit

03-19-08, 02:49 PM

When they say HD do they really mean Digital? Since all Digital is not HD what is really being said.

Earl Bonovich

03-19-08, 02:51 PM

When they say HD do they really mean Digital? Since all Digital is not HD what is really being said.

Hence my questions....

As... If it is just Digitall...

Does that include the subchannels... if it doesn't...
Then I can see this not being a big issue.

Why? Non-HD versions of the digital broadcasts, are just going to go into the same slot the ANALOG ones are in today.
And then the clause about carraige rights... as I am certain in the markets DirecTV carries HD channels.. they would like to carry all of the ones broadcasting in HD...

1,500 LiL bandwith capacity..... there is room there... especially if you calculate in the existing SD/Analog LiL bandwith.

But if they have to carry each and every Sub-Channel... that is an entirely different ball game.

gcisko

03-19-08, 03:03 PM

Hence my questions....

As... If it is just Digitall...

Does that include the subchannels... if it doesn't...
Then I can see this not being a big issue.

Why? Non-HD versions of the digital broadcasts, are just going to go into the same slot the ANALOG ones are in today.
And then the clause about carraige rights... as I am certain in the markets DirecTV carries HD channels.. they would like to carry all of the ones broadcasting in HD...

1,500 LiL bandwith capacity..... there is room there... especially if you calculate in the existing SD/Analog LiL bandwith.

But if they have to carry each and every Sub-Channel... that is an entirely different ball game.

Well either way, the current loophole I see in the story is the waiver. The provider can apply for a waiver if adding some channels will tax the bandwidth. That that is how they will be able to pick & choose. I'll bet nothing changes except we get more HD national channels. I will also guess probably more sub channels but not every single one of them (the waiver).

blc

03-19-08, 03:22 PM

Well either way, the current loophole I see in the story is the waiver. The provider can apply for a waiver if adding some channels will tax the bandwidth. That that is how they will be able to pick & choose. I'll bet nothing changes except we get more HD national channels. I will also guess probably more sub channels but not every single one of them (the waiver).

I think you are correct. That seems to be how most of these issues get handled by the FCC. For instance, the requirement that the top 100 markets do signal testing for determining signal grade strength at a subscriber's location was pushed out several times and waivers granted to the stations.

blc

03-19-08, 03:40 PM

One thing I believe that this will address is Directv's view that once it offers 1 or 2 HD networks in a DMA, it has began offering locals in HD such that any of the other networks not yet offered in HD can also no longer be eligible for HD DNS.

This interpretation by Directv that DNS for the "un-offered" networks is no longer available after Directv offers merely one or two of the networks is an interpetation clearly contrary to SHVERA. Even though the statute clearly states:
". . . after a satellite carrier makes available the digital signal of a local network station, the carrier may not offer the distant digital signal of a network station affiliated with the same television network to any new subscriber . . . ." Thus, just because Directv begins offering a couple of networks does not mean that a subscriber is no longer eligible for DNS for the ones not yet offered in HD, provided the subscriber qualifies otherwise. The statute makes clear that it refers to each individual network station.

The new FCC ruling will evidently remedy this issue. Now Directv apparently must offer all networks.

Edit: I have yet to find this ruling mentioned in the article on the FCC's website. Need to read it and see exactly what it says. The media can usually misinterpret things extraordinarily well.

Earl Bonovich

03-19-08, 03:42 PM

One thing I believe that this will address is Directv's view that once it offers 1 or 2 HD networks in a DMA, it has began offering locals in HD such that any of the other networks not yet offered in HD can also no longer be eligible for HD DNS.

This interpretation by Directv that DNS for the "un-offered" networks is no longer available after Directv offers merely one or two of the networks is an interpetation clearly contrary to SHVERA. Even though the statute clearly states:
". . . after a satellite carrier makes available the digital signal of a local network station, the carrier may not offer the distant digital signal of a network station affiliated with the same television network to any new subscriber . . . ." Thus, just because Directv begins offering a couple of networks does not mean that a subscriber is no longer eligible for DNS for the ones not yet offered in HD, provided the subscriber qualifies otherwise. The statute makes clear that it refers to each individual network station.

The new FCC ruling will evidently remedy this issue. Now Directv apparently must offer all networks.

I believe the segment that you referred to... would be affiliates of the same network.... not "any" channel in the market.

Ultimately... it is the affiliate that has to grant the waiver...

brucegrr

03-19-08, 03:53 PM

I see this, in some ways, as a good thing.

For me, we live far enough away from Toledo, Ohio that the HD signal is dicey. Sometimes good, sometimes terrible.

So, we watch SD locals on an HDTV. Not good.

Time Warner carries the locals in HD.Excellent picture quality.

blc

03-19-08, 03:55 PM

I am just noting that Directv's policy, when viewing their eligibility for HD DNS page, is that once Direct begins offering even one local network in HD, none of the others are available (automatically eligible is a better term) for DNS at that point. Rather, the statute says that only the local network that Directv begins offering is no longer available for DNS. Directv apparently takes the view as a "package" approach that as long as it offers one or two locals in HD, the subscriber is no longer able to get DNS for the others not yet offered. According to the statute, no waiver should be required for a subscriber wanting only DNS for networks not yet offered locally--as the statute makes clear by referencing a single station and the network that station is affiliated with. Of course, the subscriber would have to meet the other requirements for DNS such as living where no grade b digital signal can be received.

I am not sure why Directv takes this all or nothing approach other than because they offer locals (and HD locals) as a package. It might be easier on administrative matters and on training csrs to just make it an all or nothing approach. In the end, its clearly Directv's prerogative. The statute, however, does not seem to cut off a subcriber's ability to still receive DNS for the other networks not yet offered in HD by Directv locally.

blc

03-19-08, 04:41 PM

The way SHVERA reads for HD DNS is that if a subscriber lives beyond a grade b digital signal, or is otherwise "unserved" such as with an RV, and the provider does not yet offer HD locals, then the subscriber is eligible for HD DNS. If Directv, however, offers locals in SD (but not yet in HD), the subscriber must also subscribe to the SD locals package within 60 days of getting HD DNS service. If no SD locals are yet offered, and the subscriber is already receiving HD DNS, the subscriber must also subscribe to SD locals when they become available but can continue to receive the HD DNS. Same is true for HD locals, the subscriber must also add those when they become available but can continue to receive the DNS if the subscriber "got in" before HD locals were offered. The above-quoted provision in my prior post deals with the situation of when Directv begins offering local HD (digital) signals for networks. At that point, a subscriber not already receiving HD DNS can no longer get THAT particular network once Directv offers the local of that particular network in HD. All of this applies to very few subscribers who live too far from digital broadcast towers and that are able to subscribe to HD DNS before HD locals are offered by Directv. Other subscribers can always try to obtain a waiver. The waiver overrides the no distants-where-locals. That's the entire meaning of the "waiver," the subscriber is waived from only locals.

At least this is my understanding from reading the statute and FCC rulings.

RAD

03-19-08, 06:04 PM

Earl Bonovich

03-19-08, 06:05 PM

During the D11 launch a D*, Phil Goswitz VP at D* for Space and Communications was talking about capacity after D11 goes operational, he said the 150 national HD channels we've all come to know and love but he said for locals 150 markets, not 1500 channels. Wonder if they're now just figuring that they won't do all DMA's?

I Think they have know for a long time they won't do all DMA's...
They have made that argument a few times... that as you get to the smaller population DMA's... the ROI isn't there.

lwilli201

03-19-08, 06:53 PM

I Think they have know for a long time they won't do all DMA's...
They have made that argument a few times... that as you get to the smaller population DMA's... the ROI isn't there.

I can see that 60 DMS's servicing only about 10% or less of the population will definitely not bring an adequate ROI.

inkahauts

03-19-08, 06:58 PM

Actually i heard him say 750 channels for LIL HD from D11 at one point, and that D12 was going to help expand upon that and bring national count to 200.

ticket

03-19-08, 07:09 PM

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html?desc=topstory
FCC Plan Allows Satellite Giants To Down Convert HD Signals For Years
The satellite giants—which combined serve about 30 million pay-TV subscribers—convinced FCC officials that they lacked the channel capacity to provide every eligible station in HD immediately. They insisted that they needed several years to prepare for a full HD carriage requirement.

Alan Gordon

03-19-08, 07:20 PM

It seems like it is a little vague.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but I've always read it to mean that if DirecTV offers a local channel in HD to a DMA, it has to carry all of them that are eligible for "Must-Carry". Considering how the current analog "Must-Carry" rules work, I'm assuming question #1 would be answered in the same way. As far as question #2 goes, that's the way I've read it in every article I've read regarding it. They already have "Must-Carry" for analog, and I've never heard (in any article I've read) the requirements referring to digital. As for question #3, I've never heard any mention of sub-channel "Must-Carry" rules for a while, so I'm going to assume that this won't be an issue at this time (though it's probably only a matter of time before this comes up again!).

1,500 LiL bandwith capacity..... there is room there... especially if you calculate in the existing SD/Analog LiL bandwith.

But if they have to carry each and every Sub-Channel... that is an entirely different ball game.

If they have to carry every PBS sub-channel, or religous sub-channel, yes... BUT the sub-channels on the big networks shouldn't hurt DirecTV's bandwith capacity much since their existence makes the big affiliates HDTV channel smaller... but as I said, I haven't heard anything about "Multicast Must-Carry" in this set of rule-making.

During the D11 launch a D*, Phil Goswitz VP at D* for Space and Communications was talking about capacity after D11 goes operational, he said the 150 national HD channels we've all come to know and love but he said for locals 150 markets, not 1500 channels. Wonder if they're now just figuring that they won't do all DMA's?

I live in DMA #147, and I've heard for a while through the grapevine that DirecTV is planning on offering SD-LIL here (as well as neighboring DMA #125). I've been hoping this is soon as I have some relatives who just bought a HDTV and I want them to switch over to DirecTV... but without LIL, they won't switch. I have high hopes though as a local car dealer has had about 20 brand-new DirecTV vans parked out front for the last month or so, and I'm HOPING this is a sign of DirecTV's expanded prescence in our area. The only problem though is that DirecTV's website says that DirecTV currently offers LIL in 149 DMAs... so should I get my SD-LIL, will I have to say "goodbye" to the chance of HD-LIL because some DMAs farther down the list than me got their SD-LIL first? Here's hoping he was just rounding off...

~Alan

blc

03-19-08, 07:48 PM

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html?desc=topstory

Thanks for the link to that article. The down-convert is interesting. What appears to be clear is the must carry now applies to digital as well as analog.

R8ders2K

03-20-08, 04:03 AM

Question #3:
What about Sub-Channels?

That's why I've installed an OTA antenna. That way, I'll always get the sub-channels and full 12 Mbits when watching CBS OTA at 1080i.

Jtaylor1

03-20-08, 05:33 AM

Looks like I better get a digital to analog box. Better yet, everyone needs to trash their analogs and flush their money down the toilet for digital sets.

TANK

03-20-08, 06:30 AM

Could make up the FCC change with the election in Nov ?

Are those members political appointees ?

jpl

03-20-08, 08:45 AM

Could make up the FCC change with the election in Nov ?

Are those members political appointees ?

Yes, the FCC chairman is a political appointee. I don't think a changing of the guard will bring about a change in this policy, though. I think the FCC's done a pretty horrible job with the whole OTA analog elimination. They're pushing tv providers to fill the gaps. This policy (carry one, carry all) has been talked about for some time. The fact that the FCC made this call should come as no surprise - it's been on the docket for a while now. Anyway, the dbs companies have grown pretty large, and the notion that a future FCC chair will be more sympathetic toward the bottom lines of a couple large companies, over the 'needs' of consumers just ain't gonna fly. The fact that it is a political appointment means that the FCC chair is MORE sensitive to political realities - whether it makes good sense or not, no FCC chairman is going to side with 2 large companies over the perceived needs of 'working Americans' who just want to watch TV. I don't want to make this a political discussion, but a changing of the guard won't change the policy in my opinion.

TBoneit

03-20-08, 08:51 AM

My guess is that at the bottom of it all or at least supportive of it is the cable companies.

They only need to carry locals on a system for that area unlike satellite where all the locals need to be carried on the system.

lwilli201

03-20-08, 09:11 AM

The government sees local TV affiliates as needed for public information and safety. The FCC is not going to enact any rules that will hurt local TV. This is the big club that the NAB carries. If it is determined that locals can not survive because everyone is FF through commercials, that ability WILL BE taken away from our DVR's. You can bet on that. Not all the RANTING will change it. The government and the FCC will not let the major local TV affiliates fail.

Indiana627

03-20-08, 09:14 AM

So the FCC did not agree to the 4 year phase in period that both D* and E* proposed? That wasn't mentioned at all in the article.

tms

03-20-08, 09:23 AM

Yes, the FCC chairman is a political appointee. I don't think a changing of the guard will bring about a change in this policy, though. I think the FCC's done a pretty horrible job with the whole OTA analog elimination. They're pushing tv providers to fill the gaps. This policy (carry one, carry all) has been talked about for some time. The fact that the FCC made this call should come as no surprise - it's been on the docket for a while now. Anyway, the dbs companies have grown pretty large, and the notion that a future FCC chair will be more sympathetic toward the bottom lines of a couple large companies, over the 'needs' of consumers just ain't gonna fly. The fact that it is a political appointment means that the FCC chair is MORE sensitive to political realities - whether it makes good sense or not, no FCC chairman is going to side with 2 large companies over the perceived needs of 'working Americans' who just want to watch TV. I don't want to make this a political discussion, but a changing of the guard won't change the policy in my opinion.

Really?? I respectfully disagree.

Then why do they have rules in place not allowing us to watch what we want, when we want it. They are protecting big business - local affiliates and their owners. It's NOT about us - the consumer, it's about the networks, their affiliates, and their advertising revenue. Let us not kid ourselves.

TedBarrett

03-20-08, 10:47 AM

If this means that I'll finally be able to receive PBSHD over DirecTv then I'm all for it.

RAD

03-20-08, 10:54 AM

If this means that I'll finally be able to receive PBSHD over DirecTv then I'm all for it.

D* and PBS had already annoucned an agreement to cover adding PBS HD retransmission rights and D* has lit up PBS in some markets already.

Indiana627

03-20-08, 11:17 AM

FCC Yields To DirecTV, Dish On HD Carriage
Plan Allows Satellite Giants To Down Convert HD Signals For Years

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6543480

Sixto

03-20-08, 11:26 AM

FCC Yields To DirecTV, Dish On HD Carriage
Plan Allows Satellite Giants To Down Convert HD Signals For Years

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6543480Thanks for the link.

Sounds like they certainly did better then the other article yesterday.

After reading the article, still wonder somewhat what "down convert broadcasters’ HD signals" really means as an implementation.

Indiana627

03-20-08, 11:40 AM

Maybe they'll be allowed to down convert to 480p (aka EDTV)? That's still the 16x9 format, but it probably takes up less bandwidth than 720p or 1080i.

CopyCat

03-20-08, 12:39 PM

D* and PBS had already annoucned an agreement to cover adding PBS HD retransmission rights and D* has lit up PBS in some markets already.

I find that very interesting because when I asked for national PBS this month after the local PBS told me to ask DirecTV to apply for a waiver, DirecTV told me it was a violation of federal law to allow me to have national PBS.

Was I feed a line or what ?:eek2:

jpl

03-20-08, 01:07 PM

Really?? I respectfully disagree.

Then why do they have rules in place not allowing us to watch what we want, when we want it. They are protecting big business - local affiliates and their owners. It's NOT about us - the consumer, it's about the networks, their affiliates, and their advertising revenue. Let us not kid ourselves.

The rules regarding retransmission of local signals is different than what we're talking about here. I agree that it's an asinine regulation, that's really outlived its usefulness. If the FCC was driven by big business then why did they enact this change at all? Why not squelch it before it got passed? And ask companies like Comcast if the FCC is pro-big-business. I'm not Comcast fan, but they REALLY get shafted by the FCC. One rule that they're considering is a cap on the percentage of the pay tv market any one company can own. That rule is aimed directly at Comcast. The size that Comcast is now would be illegal if that rule went into effect.

Besides, if the FCC were really that deaf to the wants of the consumers then DBS companies would still not be able to broadcast local stations. The only reason they're able to broadcast them at all is because of an FCC regulation change that happened in the 90's. It always galled me when I saw commercials by companies like Comcast that said, in essence 'we care about you, the consumer - we show that by providing you with local channels.... the big, bad dbs companies don't want you to have access to local channels...' It was all bunk. DirecTV didn't offer locals at the time because they couldn't - the regulation didn't allow for it.

The rules governing cable and local stations have always been different. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. Besides, think of it this way - it's easier to enact something like this than it is to take it away. THAT'S the political reality. Once created, something in Washington rarely dies, even if its outlived its usefulness. It's one thing to not create it in the first place, but once its there, the political realities take over, and it takes on a life of its own. In other words, a future administration would have to vote to make a change which could (in the Washington view of the world) hurt the 'little guy'. It's one thing to move in one direction with this change, but to undo it, a future chairman would have to do something that appears to take away from the 'little guy' in favor of the big, bad corporation. And if you think big companies rule in Washington, just keep that in mind the next time some blowhard brings the oils execs before congress... or wal-mart bashing becomes another cause celebre... or they go after big tobacco, or gun manufacturers, or Microsoft... All very large companies/industries that have been targeted by Washington precisely because it's very easy to demogogue them for political points.

RAD

03-20-08, 01:12 PM

I find that very interesting because when I asked for national PBS this month after the local PBS told me to ask DirecTV to apply for a waiver, DirecTV told me it was a violation of federal law to allow me to have national PBS.

Was I feed a line or what ?:eek2:

Sorry, you didn't mention you wanted a national PBS feed since this thread was talking about local that's what I was addressing. The link to the D* press release about PBS HD local stations is at http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=284302

dhaakenson

03-20-08, 01:22 PM

Maybe they'll be allowed to down convert to 480p (aka EDTV)? That's still the 16x9 format, but it probably takes up less bandwidth than 720p or 1080i.

I'll really be interested in knowing more about the down converting aspect of this FCC ruling. I expect HD channels to be delivered at HD, not ED. If they can't fit all the channels on their bandwidth, then drop some.

kog

03-20-08, 01:22 PM

Question #1:
What if the affiliate doesn't give DirecTV the right to carry the channel... or wants to charge for the right? Does DirecTV (or Dish) have the right then not to carry it.

Isn't there a rule that governed how much cable providers must pay the OTA broadcast stations to carry their content? Does this apply to DBS?

Question #2:
Only channels that carry HD content? are must carry?

Since this ruling is about what happens after the Feb '09 analog cut-off, isn't this moot? Since all the stations will be in HD at that point.

Question #3:
What about Sub-Channels?

I think cable got some exemption where they only have to carry the primary channel in HD and the sub-channels in SD (or not at all). I would imagine similar rules would apply to DBS. Though in the end the main channel plus all the sub-channels being broadcast OTA still has to all fit in that 20Mbps pipe so it can be planned.

jpl

03-20-08, 01:27 PM

Since this ruling is about what happens after the Feb '09 analog cut-off, isn't this moot? Since all the stations will be in HD at that point.

I'm sure others will jump on this - but the cut-off doesn't require going to HD - it requires OTA to go digital. Not the same thing. Second, it's not moot at all. What this regulation says is that if a DBS company decides to carry 1 HD local in your market they must carry them all. That would be a huge impact on DirecTV. For example, in the Philly market they carry (last I checked) 5 HD locals. Based on this rule, they'd have to carry all of the HD locals for the market.

n3ntj

03-20-08, 01:37 PM

D* and PBS had already annoucned an agreement to cover adding PBS HD retransmission rights and D* has lit up PBS in some markets already.

We still don't know if D* will carry the PBS HD feed from the local PBS station or solely the local DT feed. Locally, our PBS station has a 33.1 signal which is their local analog feed transmitted on a digital channel, and a 33.3 signal which is the national PBS HD feed. I keep emailing the local PBS station but get no response.

n3ntj

03-20-08, 01:42 PM

Wow.. you mean D* will have to carry the Korean News and Indian Bollywood channel on 35.1? I get a big kick out of watching that channel OTA from my location. ;-)

kog

03-20-08, 01:58 PM

I'm sure others will jump on this - but the cut-off doesn't require going to HD - it requires OTA to go digital. Not the same thing.

I do understand the difference between "HD" and "Digital". My comment about it being "moot" is that since all the OTA stations will be digital, they'll all be in HD. There's no real reason for them not to broadcast in "HD" since they don't have the bandwidth constraints that cable and DBS has. There may be a couple of stations in a DMA that want to use their bandwidth so they can broadcast 5 SD digital programs at the same time. Until we see the final text of this FCC decision we won't know how that is going to be handled.

I am not saying that this won't have a huge impact on DirecTV. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and we have quite a few OTA stations broadcasting digitally now that DirecTV doesn't carry.

lwilli201

03-20-08, 02:02 PM

Since this ruling is about what happens after the Feb '09 analog cut-off, isn't this moot? Since all the stations will be in HD at that point.

.

All stations will be digital, not necessarly HD. There is a big difference which many seem to not understand. No station will be required to broadcast in HD. They will be required to broadcast in one of the many digital formats. Period.

Earl Bonovich

03-20-08, 02:05 PM

IMy comment about it being "moot" is that since all the OTA stations will be digital, they'll all be in HD.

That is not correct.
Just because it is digital, doesn't at all mean they will be in HD..

In fact, most channels will not be in HD.
Here in Chicago... all stations are broadcasting digitally already (except maybe a small number of stations)... Only 7 are broadcasting anything in HD...

ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WGN, PBS are regularrly broadasting HD
WCIU will broadcast sporting events in HD.
WPWR is HD compatible, but I don't think they have broadcasting anything in HD since the end of the UPN.

All the other stations in Chicago (which last check there where well over 20)... are not in HD... but are digitally broadcasting.

And right now... I only know of 1 channel (that is less then a month old), that isn't carried by DirecTV.

kog

03-20-08, 02:31 PM

That is not correct.
Just because it is digital, doesn't at all mean they will be in HD..

In fact, most channels will not be in HD.
Here in Chicago... all stations are broadcasting digitally already (except maybe a small number of stations)... Only 7 are broadcasting anything in HD...

Okay, I guess I shouldn't have used "ALL". In my DMA, I would say about 1/3 of the current 20+ OTA stations are broadcasting in HD with the rest broadcasting multiple digital SD using sub-channels. But going forward I can easily see more and more of these channels broadcasting HD as HD material becomes more common. I think the big wildcard here is what the FCC ruling is on carrying the sub-channels, even though they are almost always SD there are a lot more of them.

blc

03-20-08, 02:54 PM

I find that very interesting because when I asked for national PBS this month after the local PBS told me to ask DirecTV to apply for a waiver, DirecTV told me it was a violation of federal law to allow me to have national PBS.

Was I feed a line or what ?:eek2:

You may very well have been. See my prior posts in this thread. It will depend on whether you qualify under the statute as an unserved household and whether Directv yet offers a digital PBS local to you.

Directv takes the position that once they begin offering so much as one measly HD local within a dma, then at that time according to Directv it now "offers HD locals" and any distant HD locals are no longer automatically available (this is different than available by waiver-but just try explaining that to a csr who is following script). Directv even goes further and takes the position that they cannot even request a waiver for you for any network after they now offer only one or two of your locals in HD. Both of these positions do not have foundation in the statutes or the prior FCC rulings.

This latest development by the FCC, and the subject of this thread, will now (or according to the article actually a few years in the future) require Directv to offer your local PBS digital feed also along with the other digital locals. Essentially, from what the article states, satellite providers must follow the must carry rules for the digital signals as they have been required to do for the analog.

Edit: You may have to contact a "resolution specialist" who can get you to someone who might actually be able to help you and determine if might qualify or be able to get a waiver. The problem lies with the csrs and some in the distant network department, if they still have that department.

It is odd that the FCC still has not posted any of this new ruling from yesterday on their site.

CopyCat

03-20-08, 03:05 PM

Sorry, you didn't mention you wanted a national PBS feed since this thread was talking about local that's what I was addressing. The link to the D* press release about PBS HD local stations is at http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=284302

Thanks for clarifying that for me, I already get 3 PBS locals OTA, 2 digital with some HD containt. I was looking for the Met shows on the NY PBS since here in SC they only showed 4 of the series.

Tom Robertson

03-20-08, 03:07 PM

i have noticed that it is common for the FCC to make a decision one day, but take a few days to draft the actual verbiage for the news releases and Orders.

Since this appears to have been a late decision, perhaps somewhat different than was expected, I'm betting we'll see the release tomorrow or Monday.

Cheers,
Tom

Paul Secic

03-20-08, 03:28 PM

I do understand the difference between "HD" and "Digital". My comment about it being "moot" is that since all the OTA stations will be digital, they'll all be in HD. There's no real reason for them not to broadcast in "HD" since they don't have the bandwidth constraints that cable and DBS has. There may be a couple of stations in a DMA that want to use their bandwidth so they can broadcast 5 SD digital programs at the same time. Until we see the final text of this FCC decision we won't know how that is going to be handled.

I am not saying that this won't have a huge impact on DirecTV. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and we have quite a few OTA stations broadcasting digitally now that DirecTV doesn't carry.

Which channels does Directv carry? Dish carries all channels except ch: 38. I don't speak Spanish, Chinese ETC. I took four years of French in high school, so 4 or 5 stations don't serve me. But I understand they do serve somebody.

kog

03-20-08, 03:43 PM

Which channels does Directv carry? Dish carries all channels except ch: 38. I don't speak Spanish, Chinese ETC. I took four years of French in high school, so 4 or 5 stations don't serve me. But I understand they do serve somebody.

For the SF Bay Area DMA the difference is pretty minor. For SD locals the only difference is DirecTV carries channel 38 and 65. For HD locals, it's 4 and 44 which Dish does not carry. Channel 44 (KBCW) was added to the HD locals not long ago. Now if only they'd add all those PBS stations in HD.

Stuart Sweet

03-21-08, 11:35 AM

It seems the FCC has seen the light on this issue:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=123297&highlight=FCC

jpl

03-21-08, 03:33 PM

It seems the FCC has seen the light on this issue:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=123297&highlight=FCC

I don't think that's true. They made concessions to DirecTV and Dish, but I don't think they're really any different than what was announced earlier. I got this from an article:

"In 2010, they'll have to have full HD carriage—"carry one, carry all in HD"—in 15 percent of markets where they offer HD, creeping to 30 percent the next year, 60 the next, and finally 100 percent of their HD markets in 2013."

I'd post a link except that I don't want the hate mail. The gist of the article is 'this is why satellite sucks'. Even though I'm no longer a DirecTV customer, I found the article, and attached comments to be misleading to say the least, so I won't post a link to the whole thing. But this snippette was interesting.

All it sounds like they're doing is allowing the DBS companies to stage their transition to this policy.

GutBomb

03-21-08, 10:43 PM

When the local affiliates shut off their analog signals in february of 2009 they will be all digital, and with the switch to digital, many will simply be going HD, much like their HD digital counterparts of today. Sure, a few channels may have a subchannel that is digital SD but the vast majority right now just have analog sd and digital HD only. I know here in boston that ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and CW all broadcast digitally in HD, but the only source of SD from them is analog. PBS is the only network broadcasting SD digitally. (technically NBC has a digital SD subchannel for weatherplus, but the nbc network itself is only available digitally in HD)

Once the analog shut-off happens the local network affiliates will no longer have SD versions of their channels to provide to the dbs companies. by downconversion they could be saying that the FCC has given Dish and DirecTV the go-ahead to replace what is now the SD locals with downconverted versions of the HD locals since they would no longer have the analog local (most SD directv local channels are from analog OTA sources, and analog OTA will no longer exist)

I fear this will result in a center-cut of the HD channel, and will look absolutely horrid for programs that are meant to be 16:9 (and are currently shown letterboxed)

Tom Robertson

03-21-08, 10:46 PM

Affiliates can still have SD versions, ones they can control and forward to video carriers. Some will have SD subchannels of their HD channels, some will have a SD feed made that they will send via fibre to carriers.

Cheers,
Tom

GutBomb

03-21-08, 10:49 PM

Tom Robertson

03-21-08, 10:54 PM

I hope that's true, but very few of them are doing it currently, which is a cause for concern.
Do you have a source? If your affiliates have an SD split now that they send to the local cable companies, would you know? :)

I only became aware of it from reading the posts of a few Station Engineers in our sister forums, avsforums.com

Cheers,
Tom

GutBomb

03-22-08, 07:09 AM

I meant very few of the network locals are providing an SD feed via OTA digital. OTA is traditionally how directv gets the local and uplinks it in smaller towns. AVSforums are my source for that, but i don't have a direct URL.

inkahauts

03-22-08, 06:03 PM

So I read this articale....

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html?desc=topstory

And this part really stood out....

"At least for the time being, if digital TV stations demand HD carriage, the satellite carriers are not require to provide a standard definition copy to customers that do not have HD set-top boxes. In others words, none of the dual must carry obligations that the FCC imposed on cable would apply to DirecTV and Dish."

I have been saying all along that the reason Directv is launching all their latest LIL stations in MPEG-4 with the requirement of woning a 5LNB dish and an HD boxes is so that next year they can flip off the sd and transmit just the HD feed for stations that broadcast HD.. This now allows them to do that without question, and they don't need to worry about supplying anyone in those markets with an sd feed... ever...

newsposter

03-23-08, 07:13 PM

is all this downrezzing stuff going to affect me in the circumstance where i watch reality shows like survivor on the digital channel (and almost no reality shows are HD but the OTA signal is so much better for me on my crt rptv than directvs crappy locals)

tuff bob

03-23-08, 08:29 PM

And right now... I only know of 1 channel (that is less then a month old), that isn't carried by DirecTV.

theres also WFBT-CA which is available OTA on 26.6. Its the channel with all the foreign programming. (Polish / Japanese etc)

kog

03-27-08, 05:33 PM

FYI, the details of the FCC order has been posted to the FCC.GOV website. I have not read it yet, it is 34 pages long.

Tom Robertson

03-27-08, 05:35 PM

Link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-86A1.pdf

Sixto

03-27-08, 05:52 PM

Link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-86A1.pdfA very nice and easy read.

Interesting that it actually mentions the troubles with D10 LIL.

Seems like the guts of the item is:

"Therefore, because of the serious technical difficulties that we find satellite carriers face, we will permit them to “phase-in” their carriage of all HD signals on a market-by-market basis. Specifically, we conclude that by February 17, 2010, a satellite carrier must provide carriage of HD broadcast stations, in HD, in at least 15% of the markets in which they carry any station pursuant to the statutory copyright license in HD. This “HD carry one, carry all” requirement will apply to 30% of a satellite carrier’s HD markets no later than February 17, 2011, 60% no later than February 17, 2012, and 100% by February 17, 2013. Satellite carriers are required to carry each digital broadcast station in the market in the same manner, including carriage of HD signals in HD format if any local station in the same market is carried in HD."