Must Carry Challenge

[shilton]

We have a new Congress and Senate which just recently took session...so I was wondering a few things about the Must Carry provisions of SHVA.

1). During his whirlwind tours of Washington, Charlie did manage to make a few friends while pressing for the merger (just not enough). Any ideas as to when or if Charlie is going to gear up for another go round Washington to try and strike Must Carry from SHVA for the benefit of "smaller America". Given the sentiments from Washington concerning the merger, I bet he could pull it off if he sold the fact that "You prevented the merger to protect little America...Must Carry hurts little America by using up needed bandwidth in the big cities leaving the little towns out in the cold".

2). I have tried writing my Senators and Congressmen in the past to question the nesessities of "Must Carry" and got some response (some favorable...some not). Now that a new session of Congress has commenced, has anyone tried writing or calling their Representatives concerning must carry to see if support can be drummed up to overturn it? I know that some of the Representatives in Smaller states had voiced concern over the current wording of SHVA in 1999 because of Must Carry. Perhaps an organized effort would permit some review of its necessity.

Any thoughts????

[sip]

Why are you worrying about it? As if it matters anyway!

Ain't going to give you any better picture or anything...........
Guide will still be screwed up!
Prices won't come down!

What personal reasons do you have to want to see it over turned?

[FTA Michael]

In Denver, there's an independent station that shows mostly religious programming. In the afternoon, they switch to moldy western and sitcom reruns. Once in a while, like last night, they show a live major college sporting event. If it weren't for must-carry, I doubt that I would have been able to watch it.

Must carry prevents DBS/cable from becoming the gateway that decides what local broadcasters are worthy to be viewed. We need diversity, and that means including stations that appeal to only a minority of viewers.

I'd love to see the FCC crack down on local broadcasters to force them to prove that they're truly serving their communities. (Maybe that would eliminate or change the home shopping broadcasters?) I'd love to see the elimination of retransmission fees on OTA signals; that would ensure that balky locals would be available.

But ultimately, sip is right. Dropping some locals would most probably result in DBS providers adding more markets, not improved picture quality. (So would dropping retransmission fees, but I digress.) And prices are set to maximize revenue, so reducing costs won't change them.

So it comes down to taking away, say, my second PBS station so that someone in Durango can watch local news? Sorry, as a big city viewer, I want to keep what I have.

[JayeDVXIII]

Personally, I don't understand why there are so many public access channels and home shopping channels on DISH but not on DirecTV; dish claims they are required to carry them but then why isn't directv required to then? What's good for the goose is good for gander?

[James_F]

Originally posted by JayeDVXIII
Personally, I don't understand why there are so many public access channels and home shopping channels on DISH but not on DirecTV

:money:

[dishrich]

Originally posted by JayeDVXIII
Personally, I don't understand why there are so many public access channels and home shopping channels on DISH but not on DirecTV; dish claims they are required to carry them but then why isn't directv required to then? What's good for the goose is good for gander?

Are you talking about the ones in the "national" packages, or the ones in the "local" packages? Actually, in most cases, D* carries MORE locals in their local paks than E*. For example, in Chicago, E* does NOT carry WCIU-26, which has LOTS of good syndicated shows & reruns - it's one of the main reasons I have D* & the Chicago locals thru THEM.

Another example is that E* (for the most part) will NOT carry low-powered stations, NO matter what their affiliation is. This means that in Las Vegas, for example, D* local subs get THEIR UPN affiliate (which is low-powered) as part of their package, while if E* subs want UPN, they have to pay extra for one of the SS's & it's NOT even on their time zone.

[JayeDVXIII]

i'm talking about national ones like (no offense) but the dumb channels like NUHAUS, "BYUTV" and "HorseTV" and all the channels that must be broadcast out of the janitor's closet from the local university.

I dont see these even on cable.

 

there are a bunch of those pollluting the 4-digit channel spectrum

[FTA Michael]

I don't take offense, but I chuckle at the irony of calling higher education networks "the dumb channels".

I'm sure that BYUTV has an enthusiastic viewing audience in the religious minority (except in Utah). I've got some Webmaster episodes TiVo'd off UWTV. My wife wants to learn French by watching StarNet. It's cool to have such a perfectly left-wing network as Free Speech available. One of these days I'll have to watch an old sitcom on FamilyNet, or get Davey and Goliath to scare my kid.

Can we all please get beyond the mindset of "If I don't watch it, it's garbage and a waste of bandwidth"? Diversity is good!

[shilton]

Originally posted by sip
Why are you worrying about it? As if it matters anyway!

Ain't going to give you any better picture or anything...........
Guide will still be screwed up!
Prices won't come down!

What personal reasons do you have to want to see it over turned?
Sip...my personal reasons are quite simple. Being in a smaller market, I get little chance at locals unless A.) More satellites go up B.) technology improves to permit them to cram even more into less space which means even worse picture quality or C.) Must carry dies thus permitting Dish and DirecTV to drop all those low rated infrequently watched stations and use the bandwidth for more markets.

If you really studied what SHVA was meant to do, it was designed to help RURAL AMERICA but clearly right now, it is not. The benefits are being seen by all the big market players who don't want to lost their 2nd PBS or their 24 hour hispanic shopping network, etc....

Get rid of must carry and you open up a world where if a channel is good enough to be carried and is in demand enough, it will be...if it isn't, it won't. Let me ask you this, if your town had 2 or 3 newspapers, how would you feel if someone said "hey...if you buy one, you've gotta buy them all" That would get you a bit upset I bet. Free commerce was designed to let the fit, successful, in demand companies succeed and the others will perish. The same rules should apply to tv. If you aren't good enough to draw any ratings from your city of origin, you sure aren't good enough to be eating up valuable satellite bandwidth either! At least that's my opinion.

Oh and by the way...for as long as Dish has no choice but to force the envelope when adding new markets, picture quality will continue to degrade, etc...and the costs are going up regardless. Just seems funny to me that the bigger markets who already have locals are so quick to point a finger at those us in smaller areas and say we don't deserve our locals too. What if yours were taken down tomorrow??? Try and remember us too.

[Greg Bimson]

Being in a smaller market, I get little chance at locals unless A.) More satellites go up B.) technology improves to permit them to cram even more into less space which means even worse picture quality or C.) Must carry dies thus permitting Dish and DirecTV to drop all those low rated infrequently watched stations and use the bandwidth for more markets.Well, I can only vouch for what DirecTV is doing. They are going to do A and B.

DirecTV will be launching a new spot beam satellite near year's end. DirecTV has also found some super-efficient encoding equipment, that will enable them to service more markets before year's end.

DirecTV, as of January 1, 2003, was serving 51 markets. Since then, DirecTV has announced they will be serving another 50 markets by year's end. Ten of those markets have been named and will be in service by June 30.

Your profile lists you as Central PA. Would that be Harrisburg, Altoona, or something else?If you really studied what SHVA was meant to do, it was designed to help RURAL AMERICA but clearly right now, it is not.True. But we are no longer under the SHVA. We are under the SHVIA, which was solely designed for the DBS companies to compete with cable in larger markets.Get rid of must carry and you open up a world where if a channel is good enough to be carried and is in demand enough, it will be...if it isn't, it won't.I am kinda with you on this. I do believe this is a handout; sort of a socialist program.

However, I would limit must carry to be available to the non-commercial education (NCE) channels, which would be mainly PBS stations, and a few others. Commercial stations should be forced as retransmission consent, and those that are simply shopping channels and the like could be ignored.

Don't forget, this whole "locals on satellite" thing started because Mr. Ergen, CEO of Dish Network, said that DBS needs locals to compete with cable. And anyone knowing anything about legislation knows that satellite wasn't going to be given a free ride by being able to cherry pick stations. Especially since cablers aren't allowed to cherry pick.

[mnassour]

Originally posted by JayeDVXIII
i'm talking about national ones like (no offense) but the dumb channels like NUHAUS, "BYUTV" and "HorseTV" and all the channels that must be broadcast out of the janitor's closet from the local university.

I dont see these even on cable.

 

there are a bunch of those pollluting the 4-digit channel spectrum

I'm going to take you to task on what you call "horse tv".

With all due respect, I'm going to assume that you mean RFD-TV, which is the only national programing service that is specifically designed for a rural audience.

For those of you who live on either coast, I'd like to take this opportunity to gently remind you that there is human life out here in "fly over" country!

Channels like this are what make multi-channel providers great. They fulfill the promise of something for absolutely everyone. I don't disparage those of you who waste money on bugged movies on the Starz! or Showtime package...and you keep your hands off of my RFD-TV, OK? :D

[shilton]

Originally posted by Greg Bimson
Well, I can only vouch for what DirecTV is doing. They are going to do A and B.

DirecTV will be launching a new spot beam satellite near year's end. DirecTV has also found some super-efficient encoding equipment, that will enable them to service more markets before year's end.

DirecTV, as of January 1, 2003, was serving 51 markets. Since then, DirecTV has announced they will be serving another 50 markets by year's end. Ten of those markets have been named and will be in service by June 30.

Your profile lists you as Central PA. Would that be Harrisburg, Altoona, or something else?True. But we are no longer under the SHVA. We are under the SHVIA, which was solely designed for the DBS companies to compete with cable in larger markets.I am kinda with you on this. I do believe this is a handout; sort of a socialist program.


For the record, I live within the boundaries of the Johnstown/Altoona Market. Seeing how Harrisburg is already online and looks like maybe Wilkes-Barre Scranton is next (at least for DirecTV), we will get bypassed on this one. I get hit with several strong spot beams, all of which are maxed or nearly maxed out, so I get left in the cold. Of course, I have been told to stop crying and just "move" but I don't feel that is the answer, as the law was not designed to force persons to have to lie and cheat to get locals. If the law worked properly, there would be room for many more local markets. And for the record, don't know how cable gets away with it. I know they are not supposed to pick and choose, but I can tell you about quite a few nearby stations that are not carried in our area by the local cable company because they are so called "underperformers". How does that work.

By the way...if you know anything of E* or D* planning a move into the Johnstown/Altoona market, can you let me know???

[Brett]

Greg, I dont think everything has to be since cable cannot cherry pick or benefit in some way, DBS should not benefit either.

Cable companies do not have to keep local broadcast channels in a contiguous order. That is a major benefit for them. Why were the DBS companies forced to keep locals contiguously? (Yeah, its not a big deal for the satellite companies, but out of principle, why were they forced this rule in SHVIA but cable companies not?)

In fact the rule should have been applied to cable companies more so than the satellite companies. Comcast for example keeps its owned CN8 and QVC channel on low channel numbers (Ch.8 and Ch.9 in my area for example), but for certain independent broadcasters Comcast puts them on Ch.63, Ch.95, Ch.99 or some gawky number not in between Ch.2 or Ch.13 to be contiguous. And channel positioning is far more important with cable since its EPG-less for majority of analog subscribers.

In Atlantic County, there are 2 licensed stations - WWSI and WWAC of Atlantic City. However neither can get low channel number carriage. Without low channel number carriages, traditional advertisers will not be interested in them. Atleast if cable was required to put local broadcast channels in contiguous order, it would prevent Comcast from keeping some stations in the ghetto. These stations would attract local advertisers and be able to do more news, and even be able to purchase better syndicated content.

In Pleasantville,NJ
the Comcast lineup is like this:

2 - Local Origination
3 - KYW 3 (CBS) Philadelphia
4 - WMGM 40 (NBC) Wildwood
5 - WTXF 29 (FOX) Philadelphia
6 - WPVI 6 (ABC) Philadephia
7 - WPHL 17 (WB) Philadelphia
8 - WNJS 23 (PBS) Camden NJN
9 - CN8
10 - WCAU 10 (NBC) Philadelphia
11 - QVC
12 - WHYY 12 (PBS) Wilmington Philadelphia
13 - Educational Access
14 - HBO
15 - WWAC 53 (IND) Atlantic City
16 - WUVP 65 (UNI) Vineland
17 - WPIX 11 (WB) New York
18 - WGTW 48 Burlington Philadelphia
19 - WWSI 62 (Telemundo) Atlantic City
20 - WPPX 61 (PAX) Wilmington
21 - Cable Marketplace
22 - CSPAN2
23 - WPSG 57 (UPN) Philadelphia

24- onwards Cable networks

98 - WTVE 51 (IND) Reading, PA


WYBE 35 is not even carried, although Comcast has a fiber line running to Pleasantville. In essence, Comcast wants WWAC and most broadcasters to fail, so local advertisers will advertise on Comcast and CN8 and CCSN. I understand FCC intentions in supporting mustcarry, but right now, it doesnt work and mostly supports over the air shopping feeds rather than "local" or regional broadcasting. Stations such as WWSI and WWAC should have first pick on the cable position in their home county since they are the most "local" channels.

[JayeDVXIII]

(red in the face)

Hey mnassour;sorry about that; guess I deserve a big horse-kick in the butt eh?

heheheh

[KB]

Regarding the PI channels...It is law (part of SHVIA, I believe) which requires that a certain number of channels (percentage of total channels less locals) be set aside for the PI channels. I cannot remember the exact percent (you can do the search in SHVIA if you have to really know the specifics) but I doubt E has put up more PI channels than required and if D has fewer PI channels than E then it is because they have fewer total channels or they are breaking the law. I no longer have D, but what I remember is their PI channels were spread out in the guide while E has all their PI channels together on the guide which might create an illusion that E has more than D.

[Greg Bimson]

shilton writes:If the law worked properly, there would be room for many more local markets. And for the record, don't know how cable gets away with it. I know they are not supposed to pick and choose, but I can tell you about quite a few nearby stations that are not carried in our area by the local cable company because they are so called "underperformers". How does that work.Cable carriage requriements are under three distinct qualifications:

1) Channel and power of the station
2) distance of transmitter from the cable headend
3) the old "significantly viewed" clause.

I don't really know the specifics of each, but I can vouch for one of the stations in my area. WTTG Fox 5 in DC is on cable systems in Baltimore, because of all three of the above. However, the Fox station in Baltimore, WBFF 45, is not available in the DC DMA.

From Brett:Cable companies do not have to keep local broadcast channels in a contiguous order. That is a major benefit for them. Why were the DBS companies forced to keep locals contiguously? (Yeah, its not a big deal for the satellite companies, but out of principle, why were they forced this rule in SHVIA but cable companies not?)Because DBS companies can sell locals in an add-on package, while consumers can opt out of purchasing their locals.

Besides, cablers have been rebroadcasting local signals for almost 50 years, and must provide local service. DirecTV and Dish Network are only in their fourth year, and do not have to provide local service.

[Geronimo]

Perhaps I am wrong. IF so I ams ure I will be corrected. But it is my understand ing that in the cable universe a station can demand that it be carried in its natural place (eg Ch 45 at Ch 45 ). Since DBS does not even use those channel numbers (though some receivers reamp to them) it would be hard to enforce that rule in DBS. Perhaps that is ONE reason why it is handled differently.

[Brett]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Perhaps I am wrong. IF so I ams ure I will be corrected. But it is my understand ing that in the cable universe a station can demand that it be carried in its natural place (eg Ch 45 at Ch 45 ). Since DBS does not even use those channel numbers (though some receivers reamp to them) it would be hard to enforce that rule in DBS. Perhaps that is ONE reason why it is handled differently.

Thats true but it doesnt always happen (in most times it doesnt) Cable weasled its way out of not following FCC regs claiming cost concerns.

A broadcast station operating at UHF 53 cannot get the 53 position on cable, when the cable defined their own traps where to put channels. In several channel location complaints to FCC, the cable company in defense used the excuse it would be too difficult and expensive implementing the same cable number as over the air number.

If you look at cost of doing local channel service, it is far more expensive for a satellite company (with only 10% market penetration) to do mustcarry as compared to a cable system (who is only carrying 1 market of locals) to do local mustcarry service. And lets not forget networks. Cable (Comcast for example) can bargain lower rates for network affiliate carriage. Cable has 60-70% penetration while the satellite company only has 5% in the market.


If cable companies are going to be waived of following FCC regs because of costs (cable claims traps are too expensive), the same fairness should be made to DBS companies (they should get some advantages) . Costs of doing local service increase for satellite companies when implementing mustcarry. It doesnt increase for the cable system. Cable companies could implement keeping local channels in a contiguous order (to have it same as satellite). Its far easier than having rules for keeping locals on their over the air positions.