View Full Version : Distant network confusion
I am confused with this All American Direct company and their distant network options. I had Dish installed for my relatives about a month ago and called and got them ABC since there is no local affiliate. They got the New York and San Francisco feed for $39.99 for the year. My parents got Dish today and I called for them and thought I was getting the same thing as before New York and San Francisco for $39.99, however only San Francisco 246 comes in.
I called and they said they only qualify for the west coast feed because of being in the central time zone. Why would this be? I checked their website and indeed it says San Francisco only but for HD can get Chicago or LA. I checked an address in a county over in the eastern time zone and it says they can get New York and LA both. Is something wrong with their address qualfication system? Why would my parents qualify for San Francisco (Pacific time) and not New York?
It also appears according to their website you get both east and west for $3.49 a month if you qualify and otherwise you still pay $3.49 and just get the west coast.
The problem is that AAD is misinterpreting the law which states you cannot receive network programing the airs at an earlier time than your local affiliate would air the programing. They are thinking that because eastern time is an hour ahead of central that the programing is airing earlier when everyone knows central and eastern air at the exact same time.
The problem is that AAD is misinterpreting the law which states you cannot receive network programing the airs at an earlier time than your local affiliate would air the programing. They are thinking that because eastern time is an hour ahead of central that the programing is airing earlier when everyone knows central and eastern air at the exact same time.
I didn't think it sounded right. Another operator said that if you're in the Central time zone you should get both feeds but I had to pay another $39.99 a year to get the East coast which would be too expensive. I hope they fix this soon because for the $39.99 they should be getting both east and west.
It is time for people in this country to petition Congress to revise SHIVA so people can get distant signals if they want them and at a reasonable price. $80/year for "free signals" in SD is insane. From what I read in another thread, the HD channels are even more expensive. If it wasn't for corporate greed, and the NAB, DISH Network customers would not have to be deal with AAD and their warped practices.
Before going on, all stations in the Eastern and Central Time Zones air programming at the same time off the east network feeds. The Mountain Time Zone, except for live sporting events, airs programming on a one-hour tape delay. In the Pacific, Alaska/Hawaii Time Zones all programming airs at the same time on the west network feeds.
The NAB monopoly for local channels has to end. For example, last week KUSA, the Denver NBC affiliate, chose to air an infomercial in place of "Law and Order" last Saturday night. They cited they needed the revenue and chose not to air the show not at all. Also, this station is notorious for denying waivers, as they cite exclusive rights and revue issues. Yet, they also reserve to right to not air networking programming at their own choosing and not provide an alternative. This can be an isssue when teh Denver Broncos play on ESPN or NFL network and they pre-empt the entire prime time schedule, and may air the pre-empted shows at the wee hours of the morning, but normally show informercials instead.
This NAB protectionism/monopoly given to us by lobbyists has created a system which these stations can charge carriage fees on cable and satellite system, but deny satellite and cable customers choices. They even give stations the rights to pull signals off satellite and cable, if they don't get the price they want. It gets worse when they deicide to pre-empt programming for "paid programming" and give viewers no recourse. Finally, the broadcasters ignore the fact the the goverment, and the public, own the airways not the broadcasters.
coldsteel
07-03-09, 07:44 PM
It is time for people in this country to petition Congress to revise SHIVA so people can get distant signals if they want them and at a reasonable price. $80/year for "free signals" in SD is insane. From what I read in another thread, the HD channels are even more expensive. If it wasn't for corporate greed, and the NAB, DISH Network customers would not have to be deal with AAD and their warped practices.
Before going on, all stations in the Eastern and Central Time Zones air programming at the same time off the east network feeds. The Mountain Time Zone, except for live sporting events, airs programming on a one-hour tape delay. In the Pacific, Alaska/Hawaii Time Zones all programming airs at the same time on the west network feeds.
The NAB monopoly for local channels has to end. For example, last week KUSA, the Denver NBC affiliate, chose to air an infomercial in place of "Law and Order" last Saturday night. They cited they needed the revenue and chose not to air the show not at all. Also, this station is notorious for denying waivers, as they cite exclusive rights and revue issues. Yet, they also reserve to right to not air networking programming at their own choosing and not provide an alternative. This can be an isssue when teh Denver Broncos play on ESPN or NFL network and they pre-empt the entire prime time schedule, and may air the pre-empted shows at the wee hours of the morning, but normally show informercials instead.
This NAB protectionism/monopoly given to us by lobbyists has created a system which these stations can charge carriage fees on cable and satellite system, but deny satellite and cable customers choices. They even give stations the rights to pull signals off satellite and cable, if they don't get the price they want. It gets worse when they deicide to pre-empt programming for "paid programming" and give viewers no recourse. Finally, the broadcasters ignore the fact the the goverment, and the public, own the airways not the broadcasters.
:joy::joy::goodjob: Bravo.
Shades228
07-04-09, 12:39 AM
It is time for people in this country to petition Congress to revise SHIVA so people can get distant signals if they want them and at a reasonable price. $80/year for "free signals" in SD is insane. From what I read in another thread, the HD channels are even more expensive. If it wasn't for corporate greed, and the NAB, DISH Network customers would not have to be deal with AAD and their warped practices.
Before going on, all stations in the Eastern and Central Time Zones air programming at the same time off the east network feeds. The Mountain Time Zone, except for live sporting events, airs programming on a one-hour tape delay. In the Pacific, Alaska/Hawaii Time Zones all programming airs at the same time on the west network feeds.
The NAB monopoly for local channels has to end. For example, last week KUSA, the Denver NBC affiliate, chose to air an infomercial in place of "Law and Order" last Saturday night. They cited they needed the revenue and chose not to air the show not at all. Also, this station is notorious for denying waivers, as they cite exclusive rights and revue issues. Yet, they also reserve to right to not air networking programming at their own choosing and not provide an alternative. This can be an isssue when teh Denver Broncos play on ESPN or NFL network and they pre-empt the entire prime time schedule, and may air the pre-empted shows at the wee hours of the morning, but normally show informercials instead.
This NAB protectionism/monopoly given to us by lobbyists has created a system which these stations can charge carriage fees on cable and satellite system, but deny satellite and cable customers choices. They even give stations the rights to pull signals off satellite and cable, if they don't get the price they want. It gets worse when they deicide to pre-empt programming for "paid programming" and give viewers no recourse. Finally, the broadcasters ignore the fact the the goverment, and the public, own the airways not the broadcasters.
It's the SHVERA act which is up for renewal this year. You can read more about it already going on here: http://www.dbstalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=79
Shiva however is hot in FF X.
phrelin
07-04-09, 10:56 AM
If you want to make a difference, you have to write your Congressman and your Senators. It's really important if your Congressman is on the Subcommittee in the House (membership list (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1570&catid=160&Itemid=61)) or the Committee (membership list (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=160&Itemid=61)). It wouldn't hurt to start a similar dialogue with your Senator if he/she is on the Subcommittee (membership list (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Subcommittees.Subcommittee&Subcommittee_ID=d930b6ed-f970-4289-83c7-4a6e60ced4e2)) or Committee (membership list (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Members)).
One has to keep in mind that to change the rules to allow everyone access to distants would be to go against the local TV stations. Members of Congress depend on those local TV stations for whatever coverage they can get at election time. But they also depend on voters and individual voters can sometimes get their attention.
If you want to make a difference, you have to write your Congressman and your Senators. It's really important if your Congressman is on the Subcommittee in the House (membership list (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1570&catid=160&Itemid=61)) or the Committee (membership list (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=160&Itemid=61)). It wouldn't hurt to start a similar dialogue with your Senator if he/she is on the Subcommittee (membership list (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Subcommittees.Subcommittee&Subcommittee_ID=d930b6ed-f970-4289-83c7-4a6e60ced4e2)) or Committee (membership list (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Members)).
One has to keep in mind that to change the rules to allow everyone access to distants would be to go against the local TV stations. Members of Congress depend on those local TV stations for whatever coverage they can get at election time. But they also depend on voters and individual voters can sometimes get their attention.
Just like they depend on exempting themselves and other politicians from the "Do Not Call List", have platinum health care, etc.. We know that our so called representative (Congress) no longer represents the people in this country. We see this everyday with their legislation. They only seem to care about getting re-elected and to stay in their six digit salary jobs.
The so called Satellite Home Viewer Act was written not to protect satellite subscribers, but corporate interests like the NAB and distributors (forcing people to but 20 channels, just to get one). But, the sticking issue is distant signals. Something that Canadians enjoy; heck, they not only can get distant Canadian signals, they also get signals from broadcasters in the United States (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS from Buffalo, Detroit and/or Seattle) by satellite providers and even some cable providers. It does not seem to upset Canadian broadcasters about "time shifting" viewing or "exclusive rights" (American TV versus the CBC, Global, CTV, et. al.). They seem to be doing very well financially, even with the competition. The difference, Parliament actually represents the interest of the people of Canada and when they lose confidence; they can call a new election and throw out who they don't want. It is unfortunate for us that we did not copy this system here.
Paul Secic
07-04-09, 01:20 PM
If you want to make a difference, you have to write your Congressman and your Senators. It's really important if your Congressman is on the Subcommittee in the House (membership list (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1570&catid=160&Itemid=61)) or the Committee (membership list (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=160&Itemid=61)). It wouldn't hurt to start a similar dialogue with your Senator if he/she is on the Subcommittee (membership list (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Subcommittees.Subcommittee&Subcommittee_ID=d930b6ed-f970-4289-83c7-4a6e60ced4e2)) or Committee (membership list (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Members)).
One has to keep in mind that to change the rules to allow everyone access to distants would be to go against the local TV stations. Members of Congress depend on those local TV stations for whatever coverage they can get at election time. But they also depend on voters and individual voters can sometimes get their attention.
If I lived by mysellf I'd remove my locals because I never watch them.
If I lived by mysellf I'd remove my locals because I never watch them.
Wow. I dont know very many people that dont watch anything on their locals.
BattleZone
07-05-09, 06:14 PM
But, the sticking issue is distant signals. Something that Canadians enjoy; heck, they not only can get distant Canadian signals, they also get signals from broadcasters in the United States (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS from Buffalo, Detroit and/or Seattle) by satellite providers and even some cable providers. It does not seem to upset Canadian broadcasters about "time shifting" viewing or "exclusive rights" (American TV versus the CBC, Global, CTV, et. al.). They seem to be doing very well financially, even with the competition.
You DO know that Canada has very protectionist laws about Canadian TV and *requires* that the amount of Canadian programming stays above a certain threshold, among lots of other pro-Canada rules. It isn't just the US that makes protectionist laws.
Here is the reply I got from All American Direct regarding this:
Hello,
Thank You for your inquiry.
Currently Central time is one hour behind Eastern time. This was verified through the Naval observatory master clock. I regret that this confirms we are not able to supply you with the New York feeds.
You DO know that Canada has very protectionist laws about Canadian TV and *requires* that the amount of Canadian programming stays above a certain threshold, among lots of other pro-Canada rules. It isn't just the US that makes protectionist laws.
For example, the following link shows what is available on BellTV (formerly ExpressVu):
http://tvonline.bell.ca/tvonline/servlet/CommandServlet?&command=flow&processid=152&lang=EN
Notice in this listings ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and PBS near the end of the listings. Also, notice the Canadian stations. This listing was generate for the Province of Ontario.
Yes, I am aware that Canada requires x% of it programming must be from Canada. Shouldn't affect American viewers that much; have noticed how much of our programming comes from Canadian sources? Look very closely as credits fly by and you may catch a Maple Leaf, CBC, CTV or Global logo.
Here is the reply I got from All American Direct regarding this:
Hello,
Thank You for your inquiry.
Currently Central time is one hour behind Eastern time. This was verified through the Naval observatory master clock. I regret that this confirms we are not able to supply you with the New York feeds.
Yes AAD the last time I looked Central Time is one hour behind Eastern Time. So, AAD's wonderful solution is to force people in the Central Time Zone to receive prime time from the western feeds, which means prime time shows start to air in the Central Time Zone at 10:00 PM CST/CDT/8:00 PM PST/PDT and ends at 1:00 AM CST/CDT/11:00 PM PST/PDT. This is truly useful, as prime time ends in the Central Time Zone at 10:00 PM. What is wrong with this picture?:nono2:
Kent Taylor
07-05-09, 09:53 PM
Here is the reply I got from All American Direct regarding this:
Hello,
Thank You for your inquiry.
Currently Central time is one hour behind Eastern time. This was verified through the Naval observatory master clock. I regret that this confirms we are not able to supply you with the New York feeds.
They had to verify that? :confused: :lol:
Here is the reply I got from All American Direct regarding this:
Hello,
Thank You for your inquiry.
Currently Central time is one hour behind Eastern time. This was verified through the Naval observatory master clock. I regret that this confirms we are not able to supply you with the New York feeds.
Thats bogus, because central time zone stations use the NY feed, so are they saying only those in the eastern time zone can get the NY feed, it does not make sense.
Thats bogus, because central time zone stations use the NY feed, so are they saying only those in the eastern time zone can get the NY feed, it does not make sense.
That's what I said back in my reply to them. When I entered an Indiana address in the Eastern time zone, it qualifies for both East & West networks in SD not just one or the other and qualifies for both Chicago and LA for HD networks. I don't get why the Central time zone is an issue here.
At least we did get the Chicago ABC station in HD to have the correct schedule, but I wonder if it will come in on non-HD receivers? Will it just show up on HD ones? If so, that will be a pain to not be able to watch ABC primetime. Even so I'm still irritated not getting both ABC East and West in SD for the $40 which is what I thought I was getting.
I hate to say it but I guess beggers cant be choosers since Dish is not supposed to offer DNS feeds at all. With their loop hole being exploited you get what you get I guess.
phrelin
07-06-09, 02:41 PM
If you're ever wondering why this whole issue is such a big deal, here's a article headlined Retrans, Net Fees Crucial To TV's Bottom Line (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=109102) that explains retransmission fees are expected by local station owners to contribute "significantly to stations' coffers" and are expected to total $1.2 billion by 2011.
Imagine if all that money were to go to a few stations in each time zone or directly to the networks for national feeds.
Jim5506
07-06-09, 09:35 PM
Imagine if all that money were to go to a few stations in each time zone or directly to the networks for national feeds.
Very few people qualify for distants, not a significant contribution. Why do you think HD distant locals are so high - very small sample to pay for those transponders.
Very few people qualify for distants, not a significant contribution. Why do you think HD distant locals are so high - very small sample to pay for those transponders.
I dont know how true that is. I have 4 SD Distants and 1 HD DNS Distant. I am sure there are alot of others to.
jclewter79
07-06-09, 10:02 PM
I dont know how true that is. I have 4 SD Distants and 1 HD DNS Distant. I am sure there are alot of others to.
Well, it is alot more true with E* than D*. E* covers a larger precentage of the country with HD lil than D* does.
Why is it that Dish just can't provide a network feed for those markets that are missing affiliates? For example, my parents market has no local ABC or CW station. They do provide WPIX on 251 as CW but why can't they provide an ABC station knowing the market has none? This would eliminate the need for distant networks to even be offered. The only reason they would need to be offered if an entire DMA was not carried by Dish.
Besides that it stinks that most markets are getting all the networks for their $5 a month and now All American Direct is taking advantage of customers with their pricing on HD feeds.
jclewter79
07-07-09, 08:04 AM
Why is it that Dish just can't provide a network feed for those markets that are missing affiliates? For example, my parents market has no local ABC or CW station. They do provide WPIX on 251 as CW but why can't they provide an ABC station knowing the market has none? This would eliminate the need for distant networks to even be offered. The only reason they would need to be offered if an entire DMA was not carried by Dish.
Besides that it stinks that most markets are getting all the networks for their $5 a month and now All American Direct is taking advantage of customers with their pricing on HD feeds.
Because that is the way the law is. Only one DMA per subscriber. And get this, if an affliate in another DMA claims they are your ABC provider, you cannot get distants either. This maybe different with the new HD distants but not with SD ones. I had to put up an antenna with a preamp for ABC over this stupid crap. At least I am not paying $10 a month for an HD feed.
Well, it is alot more true with E* than D*. E* covers a larger precentage of the country with HD lil than D* does.
Thats not really true either. The reason E* has alot less DNS customers is that they lost the rights to sell it. AAD is selling it for them but are charging out the wazoo for it to. Thats not the case with D*
Because that is the way the law is. Only one DMA per subscriber. And get this, if an affliate in another DMA claims they are your ABC provider, you cannot get distants either. This maybe different with the new HD distants but not with SD ones. I had to put up an antenna with a preamp for ABC over this stupid crap. At least I am not paying $10 a month for an HD feed.This is not true either at lesat not for D*. I had to have 2 DMA's approve all my waivers and I got Fox,NBC,ABC, and CW all in SD DNS and NBC in HD DNS. My HD DNS feed of NBC is free cause I have the SD feed of it.
Here's a follow up response to what I sent All American Direct. I told them that our non-HD DVR receiver needs to be able to view an ABC station with 7-10pm primetime because the Chicago feed on 73 won't show up on a receiver unless it is HD.
This was the reply:
Hello,
Thank You for your inquiry.
"Will they pick up the Chicago feed on 73 if it is not an HD dish receiver?" No they will not pick up the Chicago feed. You do need an HD receiver.
"The bottomline is subscribers need a non-HD feed of ABC in the central time zone if necessary."
I understand and I will forward this email to those responsible for where the program feeds originate from.
Thank You
Dustin Choate
AllAmericanDirect.com
1-800-909-9677
jclewter79
07-07-09, 04:01 PM
This is not true either at lesat not for D*. I had to have 2 DMA's approve all my waivers and I got Fox,NBC,ABC, and CW all in SD DNS and NBC in HD DNS. My HD DNS feed of NBC is free cause I have the SD feed of it.
Uh ok, this is in the E* forum so yes it is true as far as this thread is concerned.
Uh ok, this is in the E* forum so yes it is true as far as this thread is concerned.
I never heard anyone else say for either company that if 2 DMA's claim you that you can not get DNS feeds. Fact is you just have to have both approve the waiver. I cant say for sure but I still think you are wrong. I dont see how it could or would be any different for E* when they to use the SHVERA act. Several of mine required 2 DMA's approval, one required 3 and one required one. Yes I am with D* but I really doubt E* is that different. If it is then that pretty much goes against one of the things the SHVERA act is even for.
jclewter79
07-07-09, 10:52 PM
Well, I guess you can get distants in any DMA if you get all the waivers signed but, that is not really what I was talking about. Let me explain my case in a little more detail. My address falls in the Sherman TX/Ada OK DMA. My locals that are availble though E* are as follows: CBS, NBC, Fox, and CW with the "big three" being availble in HD. The Sherman/Ada DMA does not have an ABC affiliate. Before the injunction which caused E* to not be allowed to carry distants I was able to receive ABC and FOX out of the Dallas DMA (at the time Sherman/Ada did not have a FOX either). This what is called signicantly viewed channels. These are something that D* are still allowed to carry if they so choosed but, they do not in most areas that are allowed to have them. The thing about it that sucks is that if you are on the Texas side of the DMA WFAA out of Dallas claims that you are in their viewing area so you have to ask them for a waiver to receive a distant feed. They do not allow waivers. If AAD carried Dallas locals I would be allowed to get ABC from them without a waiver because I am entitled to it because they are my local ABC affliate. If I were a D* customer and they were to start carrying the Sherman/Ada DMA I could subscribe to it AND they could also give me ABC out of Dallas because without an injunction they are allowed to provide SV channels even though they do not in most areas that are eligble for them. Because of the injunction (the law) E* cannot provide me with what I am rightfully entitled to. Therefore I have an OTA antenna because that is my only option.
Well, I guess you can get distants in any DMA if you get all the waivers signed but, that is not really what I was talking about. Let me explain my case in a little more detail. My address falls in the Sherman TX/Ada OK DMA. My locals that are availble though E* are as follows: CBS, NBC, Fox, and CW with the "big three" being availble in HD. The Sherman/Ada DMA does not have an ABC affiliate. Before the injunction which caused E* to not be allowed to carry distants I was able to receive ABC and FOX out of the Dallas DMA (at the time Sherman/Ada did not have a FOX either). This what is called signicantly viewed channels. These are something that D* are still allowed to carry if they so choosed but, they do not in most areas that are allowed to have them. The thing about it that sucks is that if you are on the Texas side of the DMA WFAA out of Dallas claims that you are in their viewing area so you have to ask them for a waiver to receive a distant feed. They do not allow waivers. If AAD carried Dallas locals I would be allowed to get ABC from them without a waiver because I am entitled to it because they are my local ABC affliate. If I were a D* customer and they were to start carrying the Sherman/Ada DMA I could subscribe to it AND they could also give me ABC out of Dallas because without an injunction they are allowed to provide SV channels even though they do not in most areas that are eligble for them. Because of the injunction (the law) E* cannot provide me with what I am rightfully entitled to. Therefore I have an OTA antenna because that is my only option.
I fully understand. From what I see D* does not like labeling stations signicantly viewed. In my opinion if they are gonna say someone falls in more then one DMA and has to get all for the waiver to be approved then somewhere down the line we should be seeing some signicantly viewed channels. One of the problems for me is that even if D* said there was some signicantly viewed channels for me from the near by DMA they dont offer me I could not get them cause you have to get locals from them first before you can get signicantly viewed channels. Its kind of a stupid loop really. If you are far enough away you could always have a signal test done but like me if you are using OTA then its not likely that you would pass a site test. I know the rules suck.
What makes it even harder is when you have something like the SHVERA act on your side and you cant get D* or a local affiliate to go by the act. Everyone wants to point the finger at someone else. Most would be amazed if they knew what all I have been up to lately to get my missing CBS affiliate. I am in a grade A signal area that D* dont offer locals to and I have gotten all waivers approved except for CBS so I am not giving up but the local affiliate does not want to grant my waiver.
I found out that the SD DNS waivers D* submitts still say ANALOG on them. That being the case I dont know how an affiliate can deny an analog waiver but they are. I said okay well since the SHVERA act says that I should be able to get a grade B or stronger analog signal until november of 2009 and I cant then I want a site test done for analog signal.
Now D* dont want to do the test. Its a mess. I am sure they want to wait for Congress to rule on the new SHVERA act but come on. If I was smart I would of had the test done in Feb. when my local CBS went digital only. I would of passed the test and the waiver been granted and there is nothing they could of done about it. I guess I am trying to still get that done but its an uphill battle. I am hoping just like the others that if I submitt the waiver enough times they will get tired of seeing my name and approve me.
jclewter79
07-08-09, 01:03 AM
I can somewhat understand what you are going though. I spent a brief time going the waiver route myself. After all the crap I said "to heck with it" and just put up the antenna. It does have it advantages such as, an extra tuner to use and, better PQ but, WFAA is my local ABC even though it is in another DMA. E* and D* should be able to provide it to me just like all the cable companies in the area do to their subs. As a matter of fact cable provides all the major channels of the Dallas DMA and the Sherman/Ada DMA to their subs in this area. Which means two network feeds for all of the big 4 except ABC. To me it makes no sense that E* can't do that because of an injunction and, D* won't because they are scared of one. DBS is the stepchild of multichannel providers.
I can somewhat understand what you are going though. I spent a brief time going the waiver route myself. After all the crap I said "to heck with it" and just put up the antenna. It does have it advantages such as, an extra tuner to use and, better PQ but, WFAA is my local ABC even though it is in another DMA. E* and D* should be able to provide it to me just like all the cable companies in the area do to their subs. As a matter of fact cable provides all the major channels of the Dallas DMA and the Sherman/Ada DMA to their subs in this area. Which means two network feeds for all of the big 4 except ABC. To me it makes no sense that E* can't do that because of an injunction and, D* won't because they are scared of one. DBS is the stepchild of multichannel providers.
Its not the the DBS companies at all. Its Congress and the FCC in my opinion that wont let DBS have the same rules as the cable co's. Cable can offer you locals from another DMA but D* and E* dont have the right to. There are alot of things we need to see changed with the reauthorization of the SHVERA act 2009. I listened to the congressional hearing from a few weeks ago. I think it was 3 hours and had someone from D*, E*, ADD, Disney and ABC person, and someone from the NAB. It was very interesting. They all had valid points to their arguments. The one I liked the most was the locals (ABC) claiming that no one should have the right to see Desperate Housewives on 2 different channels at the same time. If they did then they (ABC) would lost advertising money as some would be watching the show on a different affiliate's channel instead.
D* and E* were trying to say that orphin counties like me that get my locals from 2 different states should be able to get my locals from within the state somewhere D* or E* offer them already. D* stepped up and said the last time the SHVERA act was authorized Congress granted 4 markets just that to get in state programming from another market they already were serving. D* said we have not heard anything from those 4 markets that they lost revenue for advertising and they are pretty sure they would have. Also D* said whats the difference when you put the show up on your site within one day so people can skip the local adds anyways and watch it anytime they want on their own schedule.
One of the Congressmen said so let me get this right (ABC) you think little Jonne should be able to go next door and watch the news on the 2nd channel but as soon as the news is over and regular programming comes on they should send me home?
It was very entertaining to say the least. I liked the part where the guy from ADD promised Congress that he was not going to exploit the SHVERA act via the loop hole that need addressed and he said no. I was like thats what you do everyday you are in business. E* had DNS feeds taken away but ADD is their loop hole. I had to laugh hard on that one. I can not wait to see what gets put in the new act though. I think there will be something in there to help us though.
Congress seems pretty determined that they want all DMA's covered though. Congress also asked D* and E* about the cost to have all DMA's. D* and E*said its not feesable but maybe if the locals wanted to share some of the costs. Mister (ABC) did not want anything to do with that. Like I said it was very good to listen to. It really lets you get up to speed on what they are all trying to do.
jclewter79
07-08-09, 09:14 AM
D* very much has the right to provide locals channels to you from another DMA if they are classified as an SV channel expecially if that network is not availble in your DMA. E* used to but cannot now due to the injunction. Why do you think that D* does not take advantage of this right? I think that it is because sooner or later somebody is going to get some channel they are not supposed to and then the networks will cry foul. I think they are very much scared of an injunction, what else would cause them to not do what is in the best interest of the customer?
D* very much has the right to provide locals channels to you from another DMA if they are classified as an SV channel expecially if that network is not availble in your DMA. E* used to but cannot now due to the injunction. Why do you think that D* does not take advantage of this right? I think that it is because sooner or later somebody is going to get some channel they are not supposed to and then the networks will cry foul. I think they are very much scared of an injunction, what else would cause them to not do what is in the best interest of the customer?
I think in their minds its safer for them to offer you a SV channel if you already have LIL. If you dont then you would be getting a SV channel that would be one of the big four maybe and not have a waiver for it or anything like that. They want to prevent you from having a local station if you are not supposed to have it. Understandable really.
I can somewhat understand what you are going though. I spent a brief time going the waiver route myself. After all the crap I said "to heck with it" and just put up the antenna. It does have it advantages such as, an extra tuner to use and, better PQ but, WFAA is my local ABC even though it is in another DMA. E* and D* should be able to provide it to me just like all the cable companies in the area do to their subs. As a matter of fact cable provides all the major channels of the Dallas DMA and the Sherman/Ada DMA to their subs in this area. Which means two network feeds for all of the big 4 except ABC. To me it makes no sense that E* can't do that because of an injunction and, D* won't because they are scared of one. DBS is the stepchild of multichannel providers.
I don't understand why those DMAs that are missing a network affiliate can't be provided with a designated replacement no matter what it is, so that all satellite subscribers are provided with ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox in their locals package. This would eliminate the need for distant networks to even be sold. This would also stop subscribers from having to ask for a distant network waiver with approval from a neighboring DMA affiliate that they can't otherwise receive over the air or on satellite. The FCC/Congress or whoever makes this all too complicated.
nrholland
07-13-09, 12:35 PM
This may be a side point, but is it still true that with D* you cannot get any distant nets (even with a waiver) if you receive locals in your designated market?
This may be a side point, but is it still true that with D* you cannot get any distant nets (even with a waiver) if you receive locals in your designated market?
If you had distants before 2004 then my understanding is you can keep them but if not then no if you have LIL then you can not keep DNS feeds.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.